Agentic AI Beyond the Buzzwords: By Steve Wilcockson
'I'll be honest' is a phrase that usually signals the opposite. So let me state upfront, I work in AI for a (mostly) FinTech vendor, and yes, we're all talking about agentic AI. Vendors are selling it, top tier consultants are excitedly selling that they can integrate it, and customers seem to be either cautiously curious or waiting for the hype to settle. My company has customers taking tentative steps with agents, while I was at a streaming analytics for financial services event where one CDAO was vehement that his bank didn't have the skills to adopt them. I'm frankly therefore making up my mind if I'm part of the early stage of a "game changing" zeitgeist or merely an echo chamber for shiny suits.
Earlier this year, I mentioned agentic AI in a 2026 predictions blog. Since then, the noise has only grown louder. The analysts tend to love it. The leading analyst firm predicts that by 2028, 33% of enterprise software will include Agentic AI, with half of day-to-day decisions made autonomously. Capgemini pegs the market at $47 billion by 2030. Big numbers. Big change. But also, a lot of fluff. One experienced analyst at a private dinner said don't confuse your already confused audiences with agentic jargon - they're not ready for it. That's even with his firm selling agentic AI research. Even the leading analyst firm cited earlier have rolled back: 40% of agentic AI projects will be scrapped by 2027. Folks like Stephen Klein vociferiously argue contrarian opinions against the Eduardo Ordax-like "LinkedInfluencers."
Let's cut through the noise, baseline the nomenclature at least if not real world implementations or consultant and vendor echo chambers. My opinion on which it is? No one really cares, but for those that do, I believe agentic AI is part of an emerging zeitgeist.
What Is Agentic AI—Really?
Agentic AI isn't just a rebranded chatbot or a glorified workflow. It's about systems that are proactive, not reactive. These agents don't just respond—they plan, decide, and adapt. They can break down complex tasks, choose tools, recover from errors, and adjust strategies based on feedback. They're not just executing instructions—they're reasoning through them.
That's a far cry from early LLMs like ChatGPT, which simply answered questions. Today's agents can retrieve information, remember context, and orchestrate multi-step processes. But they're still not infallible. Even the most advanced frameworks make mistakes. That's why human oversight remains essential—at least for now.
Workflows vs. Agents: Know the Difference
Workflows are deterministic. They follow predefined paths and deliver consistent outcomes. They're great for structured, repeatable tasks—think document processing or data extraction. They can even include LLMs, but they don't adapt or learn.
Agents and agentic systems, on the other hand, are dynamic. They decide what to do, when to do it, and how. They're ideal for messy, unpredictable problems, like assessing complex customer interactions or navigating multi-system processes. They're expensive, yes, but powerful where flexibility and autonomy are needed.
Systems of Agents: The Real Deal
A single agent is useful. A system of agents is transformative, at least on paper. Imagine an orchestrator agent coordinating a team: one chats with users, another generates visualizations, another monitors alerts. They share memory, follow rules, and adapt in real time. It's not human-level intelligence, but it's a step toward intelligent systems design.
Think of it like managing 100 interns on a summer project. Each agent has a role, but the orchestrator keeps the big picture in view. It's not just tech—it's organizational design and mangement. I was at an AI For The Rest of US MeetUp recently in Shoreditch. There, a speaker who is implementing this stuff (in security and defense more so than financial services) went beyond the interns on a summer project analogy. He phrased his "systems of agents" (not agentic AI systems - he never used that phrase) as like managing and orchestrating teams of specialists.
Enter MCP Servers
To make all this work, agents need to talk to tools and the rest of us. That's where MCP (Multi-Agent Communication Protocol) comes in. Developed by Anthropic, the organization that gave us Claude, MCP gives agents a standard way to connect with tools, services, and data. It's not perfect—security and complexity concerns have been raised—but as a standard, it's a leap forward from hand-coded integrations, closer to a common denominator than a center of excellence. Other better standards that raise the bar may follow. But at the very least, it's a standard.
Should they catch on, you may see MCP servers everywhere: vendors hosting them, customers orchestrating them, and agents using them to collaborate not just within but across organizations.
When Should You Use Agentic AI?
Use agents when:
The task is open-ended or unpredictable.
You need flexibility and adaptability.
Multiple tools must be orchestrated dynamically.
Human oversight is still required, but you want to scale.
Avoid agents when:
The task is simple, structured, and repeatable.
Speed and cost efficiency are priorities.
A traditional workflow or rule-based system will do.
Financial Services Implications & Final Thoughts
Agentic AI isn't magic. It's not AGI. But it's a meaningful evolution in how we build intelligent systems. The key is knowing when to use it—and when not to. Workflows matter! So too do people and decision-makers and complexity.
As with any emerging tech, nuance matters more than noise. If it works, agents are a prime fit for key tasks.
In Quant and capital markets, imagine time-series agents, backtesting agents, pricing agents, equity research agents, VaR calculation agents etc.
For the middle office and compliance, agents will read reports (e.g.SAR or STR), alert, monitor, score, build graphs, assess counterparties, write reports, etc.
When bundled together and orchestrated as systems of agents, or Agentic AI systems if you prefer that phrase, they'll augment, service and heavy lift fully fledged processes, like orchestrating equities or FX trading systems, derivatives risk management frameworks, compliance and validation improvements, and software development.
But video didn't quite kill the radio star. It brought a ton more entertainment opportunities. Just look at this weekend's sparkling Glastonbury line-up and excitement! Nor did electronification destroy the financial services industry. Far from it, we can trade anything, anywhere, anytime (mostly), not just the FTSE or NYSE. The internet hasn't quite killed off daily newspapers, bringing us conspiracies and fake news as well as a gazillion and one perspectives.
With agentic AI, we'll see, shiny suits or not!
With thanks to (indebted to!) my Q colleagues Alex Arotsker and Bill Gilpin who inspired the technical summary, and the AI For The Rest Of Us crew for the fresh, real, engaging perspectives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
AI-proof careers that protect you from robot takeover… with £44k salary & perks including 13 WEEKS holiday & company car
As The Sun reveals the careers that are safe from a tech takeover, we look at one worker making £180k a year from his AI-proof job TECH TAKEOVER AI-proof careers that protect you from robot takeover… with £44k salary & perks including 13 WEEKS holiday & company car Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) IT'S no secret that robots are coming for our jobs - but there are certain careers that can see you dodge the impending tech takeover. Experts have exclusively revealed which jobs are least likely to see humans replaced by Artificial Intelligence, and as an added bonus, you could earn up to £44k a year or get extra perks like a 13-week holiday allowance. 6 AI is a threat to many jobs - but some are so far safe from a takeover Credit: Alamy 6 A career in teaching is less likely to be affected by AI according to experts Credit: Alamy AI is rapidly advancing and can successfully complete many work tasks as well as - or even more quickly - than humans can. Experts have raised concerns over companies using it to replace humans to significantly reduce costs, and now say it could be the reason for a free fall in entry-level jobs. There were 315,550 available entry-level roles in November 2022 (when the popular AI tool ChatGPT was launched) across the UK, which dropped to 214,934 last month, according to jobs site Adzuna. It's not just graduates who are affected. AI could hit three in five workers and even replace their jobs, an International Fund report recently warned. Companies and even the government have already begun to slash their workforce to make way for AI. The UK's biggest accountancy firms - PwC, Deloitte, KPMG and EY - have reportedly slashed the number of junior roles available by up to 29 per cent, while the government is axing at least 10,000 roles in the Civil Service. But which jobs are the least likely to be affected by the tech takeover? Experts have revealed the top six jobs which are AI-proof. Some offer fantastic work perks such as annual health check-ups and discounts off hotels and your favourite brands, and much more. Perks will vary from employer to employer, so check the job specification and ask for more details when applying for a job. 6 Labourer - £29,571 Labourers are one of the most likely workers to have job security against AI. The main reason why these workers will be protected from AI is that their job is manual and requires them to be on site all of the time. The average salary for a labourer is £29,571. Construction workers are entitled to 22 days of holiday each year, as well as eight bank holidays. Some companies offer great work perks on top. For example, the housebuilder Barratt Redrow offers a fully paid-for annual health assessment for workers, and discounts at hotels and major retailers. Whereas construction company Skanska offers a 24/7 GP service for all workers and their families, and season ticket loans to help you lower annual rail ticket costs. 'I make £180k a year from being an electrician' ELECTRICIAN Jordan Farley makes big bucks being a sparkie, and even runs his own company. Jordan qualified in 2007 and created his business, Artisan Electrics, in 2016. But in 2023, The Sun reported that he earned £180,000 a year from his profession, even though he said people judge his career. Successfully taking off, the firm turned over £720,000 in 2021. Jordan, from Cambridgeshire, has even gone to the lengths of creating a YouTube account to promote the company and share a look into the life of an electrician. Jordan said on his YouTube channel: " "We've spent a lot of money on staff, vans, tools and equipment. "So although we turned over £720,000, which seems hug,e we actually only made £180,000 of net profit. "My goal has never been to be rich. My goal is simply to be financially free, to build a business that can support me and my family to do what we want to do." Teachers - £40,268 Going back to school may be a nightmare for some, but becoming a teacher could help protect your career against AI. With the average salary at £40,268 for a secondary school teacher, it's also a healthy paid job. It's unlikely that AI will take over teaching roles, because teachers play a critical role in education, said AI expert Will Francis. He says: "Kids spend as long with their teachers as they do with their parents, the job requires lots of empathy and good judgement, as well as creativity and emotional support - something which AI can't replace. The biggest work perk for teachers is that they get an enviable 13 weeks of holiday. Another big plus is that you are entitled to a generous pension package, called the Teacher's Pension Scheme, that gives you an income when you retire based on the salary you earn during your career. These sorts of schemes are known as "gold-plated" pensions because they are incredibly generous. Police officer - £37,860 Being a bobby on the beat is a career that AI will struggle to replace. That's because being a police officer requires a lot of skills that AI doesn't have, said James Neave from Adzuna. He says: "This job requires complex physical and emotional interactions, coupled with real-world awareness, which makes them resilient against AI. 6 Police officers have a lot of skills AI would be unable to replace and lots of job perks Credit: Alamy 6 Electricians are needed on-site, meaning they are more protected from an AI takeover Credit: Alamy The average salary is £37,860, but there are work perks to consider as well. Like teachers, police officers get a generous pension package because they work in the public sector. Want an early retirement? There is the option to retire at 60 - something that many workers struggling to save enough for retirement can only dream of. There are exclusive offers for police officers as well on For example, you can get 10 Euromillions lines on a ticket for only £1, and up to 50% off Virgin hotels. How much holiday you get depends on your length of service, and ranges from 22 days for less than two years in the force to 30 days if you have worked for 20 years or more. Delivery and HGV drivers - £44,763 Delivery and HGV drivers are safe so far from the AI takeover. Although technology can help drivers in the form of sat-navs, it hasn't come close to replacing drivers yet. Those working in logistics and distribution industries, which include these roles, can expect to earn an average of £44,763, according to CV Library. Some companies, like Travis Perkins, offer bonuses for safe HGV drivers. The firm gives a bonus of up to £2,400 a year if you drive safely. The working hours are very flexible, as many delivery and HGV drivers get to choose the days and hours they work. Care workers - £24,637 Although these roles are often physically and emotionally demanding, they are hard to replace. These roles require you to be on site all the time, and provide important care - something AI just can't do. Will said: "Not only do the job's physical demands change by the minute, but people don't want to be looked after by robots." The average salary is £24,637 a year, according to the job site Indeed. There are some work perks offered by care companies. 6 Care working is a vital role and now with improved perks for staff For example, Care UK allows you to access some of your pay before pay day - although be warned that you'll need to budget to make your money last longer when the next pay day rolls around. You also get access to discounts through the Blue Light Card. They cost £4.99, but you can get exclusive discounts at your favourite brands. You can get 10% off TU Clothing and Matalan, for example, and 15% off on Alton Towers tickets. Electrician - £44,792 Being a sparkie is a bright idea, as these roles are only fit for humans. It requires you to be out and about at home visits, and as a manual role, it would be impossible for AI to do. The average salary is £44,792, and there are work perks to consider. Many offer company car schemes, which are super tax-efficient ways of getting a vehicle. This is when an employer provides a vehicle to you for business or personal use. If you get your car through a salary sacrifice scheme, you hand over some of your salary to pay off the car. But, as your salary is lower, you pay less income tax and National Insurance. Many also work flexible hours.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Fintech Bank Formation and Acquisition Practical Law The Journal
Bank ownership can provide substantial benefits to fintech companies (as well as to other non-bank entities). A bank charter provides fintechs access to significantly cheaper funding than bank lines of credit, enhanced credibility through access to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-insured deposits, and exemption from state licensing and usury law requirements. Importantly, because banks are the only entities permitted to accept retail deposits, combining a bank with a fintech's other offerings enables a fintech to tailor its product and approach to customer needs to a greater degree than a third-party bank service provider generally allows. Under the Biden administration, it was difficult for fintechs to establish a bank. However, the current regulatory landscape under the second Trump administration may offer fintechs a fresh opportunity to pursue a bank charter. Understanding the types of bank charters available to fintech and non-bank companies, as well as the paths to bank ownership, are essential for successfully navigating entry into the regulated banking space. This article discusses: The types of bank charters and factors that fintechs should consider when determining what type of bank charter is appropriate. The benefits and drawbacks of de novo bank formation versus acquisition of an existing bank. The current legal and regulatory climate, and why it may be an opportune time for fintechs to consider bank ownership. Types of Bank Charters This article discusses full-service bank charters, which, for the purposes of this article, are typical FDIC-insured institutions that take a range of deposits (retail and commercial) and grant loans. This article highlights: Federal bank charters. State bank charters. Industrial loan companies (ILCs). Full-Service Bank Charter Standards and Requirements All FDIC-insured full-service banks are subject to the same core regulatory standards and requirements. For example, FDIC-insured banks are generally subject to uniform capital requirements, which require a bank to hold capital (a combination of cash, government-backed securities, and high-quality corporate debt) equal to between 8% and 12% of the bank's capital at the outset. FDIC-insured banks are also subject to rules limiting the bank's ability to engage in certain transactions with affiliates, such as buying assets from, or making loans to, an affiliate (generally including the fintech). Particularly at the federal level, bank regulators have increasingly engaged in interagency rulemaking designed to minimize differences in federal regulatory requirements among FDIC-insured banks. For example, all FDIC-insured banks are subject to the Volcker Rule, which limits the ability of an insured bank to be affiliated with: Unregistered funds, such as the types of funds maintained by private equity firms. Firms engaged in proprietary trading. (12 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1), (2).) The Volcker Rule can raise particular concerns if a fintech seeking to establish a full-service bank is itself affiliated with a private equity firm or a full-service broker-dealer that engages in market-making activities. (For more on the Volcker Rule, see Summary of the Dodd-Frank Act: The Volcker Rule and Volcker Rule: Legal and Regulatory Tracker on Practical Law.) All FDIC-insured banks are subject to ongoing examination and oversight, typically occurring every 12 to 18 months, to ensure compliance with the rules of its primary regulator or regulators. These examinations can be rigorous, and a poor rating can lead to adverse ramifications, including limitations on organic and inorganic growth, and, in more serious cases, public enforcement orders and fines. (For more information, see Bank Supervision and Examinations on Practical Law.) Federal Bank Charters A federal bank charter is a national bank charter that is issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). It provides a bank the ability to offer a uniform set of deposit and lending products nationwide because the OCC, rather than individual states, establishes the standards for national banks (12 C.F.R. §§ 7.4007 and 7.4008). A national bank can be established in any state but enjoys broad preemption over state laws by virtue of its federal charter. For example, a national bank charter can establish loan and deposit production offices, or offices that provide both services, nationwide to solicit these core bank products without regard to state laws (12 C.F.R. §§ 7.1004, 7.1028, and 7.1029). The OCC also has sole visitorial power over national banks to conduct examinations, inspect books and records, supervise and regulate certain activities, and enforce compliance with applicable laws (12 C.F.R. § 7.4000). As a result, state officials are preempted from enforcing state licensing requirements or otherwise exercising these powers over federal banks. While states continue to challenge the extensive scope of this preemption, the US Supreme Court recently generally reaffirmed the broad preemption of state law long held by national banks. (12 U.S.C. § 25b; Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. 205 (2024); see Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024); for more information, see Federal Preemption Issues in Banking on Practical Law.) The uniform regulatory and oversight platform characteristic of a full-service national bank gives fintechs the ability to provide products and services in a uniform manner when offering services nationwide. For example, SoFi acquired a national bank to promote its nationwide lending business in 2022, and SmartBiz Loans acquired a national bank for the same purpose in March 2025. However, a federal charter also has certain disadvantages for fintechs relative to state banks. The OCC regulates national banks nationwide, including the largest banks in the country, such as JP Morgan Chase and Citibank, N.A., with the top five national banks holding approximately 43% of total US banking assets. As a result, there is the concern that the OCC may not be incentivized to charter smaller national banks or respond to their concerns on an ongoing basis. Another disadvantage is that federal examination fees, which are based on asset size (12 C.F.R. § 8.2), are generally higher than their state counterparts, in part because the state regulators share their examination responsibilities with the state bank's primary federal regulator (the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) or FDIC), which does not charge examination fees. (For more information, see US Banking Law: Overview on Practical Law.) If an FDIC-insured full-service national bank is owned by an entity, then that entity (and any entity that owns that entity) is deemed a bank holding company and regulated separately by the FRB under the federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA). The BHCA generally precludes banks from being affiliated with institutions engaged in non-financial activities. A fintech engaged in lending, payments, money transmission, or similar activities itself would be deemed engaged in activities that are 'financial in nature,' and the activities therefore would be permissible under the BHCA (12 U.S.C. § 1843). However, if the fintech, or its parent or commonly owned entity, is engaged in commercial (such as real estate) or industrial activities, then the BHCA likely would preclude the ownership of an FDIC-insured national bank. If the BHCA applies and permits the fintech to be affiliated with an insured bank, then the top-tier holding company of the enterprise would be subject to separate FRB regulation, including capital and activity limitations. The FRB would examine the holding company on a regular basis, typically every 12 to 18 months. Similar to bank examinations, holding company examinations can be rigorous, and poor examination ratings adversely impact an organization's ability to pursue its objectives. (For more on bank holding companies, see Bank Holding Companies: Business Activities and Regulation on Practical Law.) State Bank Charters In contrast to the OCC, which is a single federal regulator of national banks across the country, each state has its own bank regulatory agency. Even in states with a significant financial services presence, like New York, the state regulator is believed to be generally more attentive and responsive to the issues of the banks it regulates. A fintech seeking to charter a bank may find a more welcoming reception from a state chartering authority than the OCC. Under the Trump administration's more flexible FDIC, it will be easier to obtain federal deposit insurance, so a fintech may find an easier path to a charter with an FDIC-insured state bank than with a national bank. Further, state bank regulators share ongoing oversight duties with either the FDIC (in the case of a state non-member bank) or the FRB (in the case of a state member bank), neither of which charges examination fees. As a result, the overall regulator examination and assessment fees is typically lower for a state bank than a national bank. All FDIC-insured banks, including state banks, are subject to significantly less interstate licensing and regulation than non-bank fintechs. The FDIC published an opinion providing that all FDIC-insured banks, including state banks, can 'export' the interest rate of their home state across the country, rather than being subject to the laws of each state where a borrower resides (FDIC, General Counsel's Opinion No. 11, Interest Charges by Interstate State Banks, 63 Fed. Reg. 27282 (May 18, 1998); for more information, see Interest Rate Issues for Bank Lenders and the Most Favored Lender Doctrine on Practical Law). Moreover, although state banks are not afforded the same level of federal preemption over state laws as national banks, as a practical matter, given the level of bank regulation, many states nonetheless exempt state banks from their licensing laws even without preemption. For example, California is recognized as imposing some of the more significant burdens on institutions engaging in financial services business with its citizens, and the California Financing Law (CFL) generally imposes licensing requirements to engage in the business of offering consumer and commercial loans (Cal. Fin. Code § 22100). However, the CFL also provides an express exemption from the entirety of the CFL (including its licensing requirements) for banks, trust companies, and savings and loan associations, whether existing inside or outside of California (Cal. Fin. Code § 22050(a)). As with a national bank, an entity owning an FDIC-insured full-service state bank will be a bank holding company under the BHCA, except in special circumstances. The FRB regulation and oversight of a state bank holding company is also similar to that described above for national bank holding companies. ILCs An ILC is a special type of FDIC-insured state-chartered bank that can be chartered in a few states, including Utah and Nevada, with Utah receiving the vast majority of recent charter filings. While an ILC is subject to the same capital requirements and federal and state regulations as any other insured state bank, an ILC is of particular interest to fintechs (and other non-bank-centric firms) because of the reduced regulatory requirements imposed on an ILC's parent and affiliates. Fintechs often seek to establish ILCs (rather than traditional national or state-chartered banks) because unlike the parent of a national bank, the parent of an ILC is not treated as a bank holding company under the BHCA, and therefore it and its other non-bank affiliates are not subject to the limitations imposed by the BHCA or FRB supervision and regulation. Because an ILC parent is not subject to the capital requirements of a bank holding company, it is not precluded from engaging in non-financial activities. The ILC can take deposits and make loans like any state bank, with one notable exception. To avail itself of the primary benefit of the ILC charter (that is, the general inapplicability of the BHCA to it and its affiliates), an ILC cannot take 'demand deposits' (the type of deposit account typically offered by full-service banks) if its assets exceed $100 million (an asset level exceeded by the vast majority of banks) (12 U.S.C. § 1841(c)(2)(H); 12 C.F.R. § 204.2(b)). ILCs are able to overcome this limitation through other types of deposit accounts that do not meet the regulatory definition of demand deposit but do afford customers the same practical capabilities. Specifically for retail customers, ILCs are able to offer negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts, which are a type of transaction account that does not meet the definition of demand deposit. NOW accounts cannot be offered to commercial customers, which historically limited the deposits that ILCs could receive from them (12 U.S.C. § 1832(a)). However, in 2020, the FRB removed the six transactions per month limit that it imposed on savings deposits, which includes money market deposit accounts (MMDAs) (another type of deposit account that does not meet the definition of demand deposit), that may be offered by ILCs to commercial customers. As a result, ILCs are able to offer MMDAs with transactional features to commercial customers, which provides them the same functionality that they would receive with a demand deposit account. Because there are no limits on loans, an ILC can provide the same services to customers as any other insured state bank. In recognition of the inapplicability of the BHCA, the FDIC has issued regulations imposing certain reporting requirements and other commitments on ILC parent companies as a condition of obtaining the charter, including that the parent company must serve as a source of financial strength to its FDIC-insured subsidiary bank (12 U.S.C. § 1841(c)(2)(H)(ii)). The Volcker Rule's prohibitions relating to covered funds and proprietary trading also apply to an ILC and its parent affiliates. Still, ILCs provide a unique type of entry into the banking sector for fintechs, offering the attributes of full-service banks while reducing regulatory burdens on affiliates, and are therefore commonly evaluated by fintechs considering a bank charter. For example, BMW and Pitney Bowes each own ILCs, and in March 2020, Square and Nelnet obtained ILC charters. Several other fintechs are also believed to be currently exploring ILC charters. (For more on ILCs, see Industrial Banks: Approval and Supervision on Practical Law.) Special Purpose Bank Charter Although this article focuses on full-service bank charters, some states offer special purpose charters that allow entities to offer a unique, but more limited, range of services, which fintech firms have utilized for certain purposes. For example, through its Department of Banking and Finance, Georgia offers a Merchant Acquirer Limited Purpose Bank (MALPB) charter. This charter allows non-bank companies to engage in 'merchant acquiring or settlement activities to directly access payment card networks,' functionally enabling non-bank companies to cut costs by cutting out a middleman. For example, the fintech Fiserv chartered an MALPB in September 2024 to process credit card transactions directly rather than having to use a sponsor to access the card networks. Wyoming also offers special purpose charters called Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs). SPDI banks focus mainly on digital or traditional assets and can receive deposits and conduct business incidental to banking. SPDIs are predominately engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset-servicing activities. They cannot use customer deposits for lending. For example, Custodia Bank established an SPDI to custody crypto assets. Evidencing the limitations of the products and services they offer, neither Fiserv nor Custodia Bank has FDIC insurance, and neither is a bank holding company. Bank Formation Versus Acquisition In addition to selecting the appropriate charter, fintechs must consider whether to establish the bank de novo or acquire an existing bank. Each approach offers distinct advantages and challenges. De Novo Bank Formation There are several benefits to pursuing de novo bank formation rather than acquiring an already existing bank charter. De novo bank formation saves fintechs the time and expense of performing due diligence on a target bank and paying the premium price often associated with bank acquisitions. Additionally, a de novo bank can be tailored to the precise objectives of the fintech, whereas an acquisition could result in assets, operations, and personnel that are no longer strategic. Finally, at least with specialty charters such as ILCs, there are so few existing charters available that de novo bank formation is the only viable approach. For example, the last three companies that obtained ILC approval (Square, Nelnet, and Thrivent) all followed a de novo approach. (For more on de novo bank chartering, see Forming a De Novo Bank on Practical Law.) However, a significant downside of forming a de novo bank is having to build the bank 'from scratch,' which takes time, requires significant focus, and necessitates the hiring of personnel and infrastructure development, making this approach generally less certain of success than a bank acquisition. De novo bank formation requires filing with the OCC or a state regulator (depending on whether the bank will have a federal or state charter) and approval of FDIC deposit insurance as required under Section 5 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) (12 U.S.C. § 1815). If the full-service bank will have a parent (and the bank is not an ILC), the parent will have to apply to become a bank holding company with the FRB (see Federal Bank Charters above). Section 6 of the FDI Act lists factors that the FDIC considers in determining whether to approve an application for deposit insurance, providing entities with an indication of the work required to 'build a bank' (12 U.S.C. § 1816). These factors evaluate: The first three factors focus both on the fintech and the bank to be established, and require substantial pro formas and a well-supported, lengthy business plan covering the first three years of operations. Bank regulators prefer that the bank 'walks before it runs' and, therefore, generally want the bank's projected asset growth to be no more than 25% to 35% per year. The fourth factor, concerning the character and fitness of management, requires the finding of proven leadership, including successful full-service banking experience of the most senior executives. At least the bank president must be identified at the outset and maintained throughout the de novo process. Additionally, at least five directors, including some with banking-related experience, must be identified during the process. All of these individuals must undergo a formal screening process, including fingerprinting. The fifth factor, concerning the risk the institution would pose to the Deposit Insurance Fund, is the least defined and was the factor most often used by the FDIC under the Biden administration to justify not approving an application. Generally, to fulfill this factor, the bank needs to demonstrate that it could, if necessary, survive the debilitation of the fintech. The sixth factor, concerning the community's needs, requires the building of a plan to demonstrate that the bank will fulfill its obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (for more information, see Community Reinvestment Act Requirements for Banks on Practical Law). Under the Biden administration, the de novo process commonly took one year or more from the regulatory pre-meetings to approval (if approval was forthcoming). During the approval process, given the ongoing regulatory questions and the need to prepare for an eventual bank opening, the fintech needs to have ongoing focus on the chartering process and typically offers retainer arrangements to maintain management. While undergoing the de novo process, fintechs should understand that: The fact that the fintech is pursuing a bank charter, as well as parts of its application, will be public, but confidential business strategies generally can be kept private. There will be several rounds of regulatory inquiries and updates of pro formas. However, with a strong business plan (and fortitude), the fintech should be able to obtain a bank charter tailored to its purposes. Acquisition of an Existing Bank As opposed to building a bank from scratch by obtaining a bank charter, many non-bank institutions, such as SoFi and SmartBiz, decide to pursue the acquisition of an already existing full-service bank. As noted above, a bank acquisition does not allow the bank to be as tailored as a de novo bank formation, and the acquisition may necessitate asset sales or other adjustments. However, there are several benefits to this approach, particularly if the target bank is healthy. For example, an existing bank already has a business, management, operations, and a track record. There is also less concern that the bank's personnel will leave during the application process because the personnel are already working at an operating bank. Except for specialty charters such as ILCs, there are thousands of US banks available, allowing a fintech to find a target most suitable to its needs. Because the target bank already has deposit insurance, depending on the structure of the acquisition, the applications required could include a BHCA application (as with a de novo bank), a Bank Merger Act application (if the target establishes a shell bank to complete the acquisition), or a Change in Bank Control Act application (if individuals are acquiring the target). In each case, in addition to the financial strength and risk management of the fintech, the bank regulators will focus on the target bank. If the target bank is not healthy at the time of the application, either financially or from a risk management perspective, then the bank regulators will want to know how the fintech plans to return the bank to full health. Particularly given that federal law prohibits banks from sharing examination information with the fintech without bank regulator approval (which can be difficult to obtain), methodical and informed due diligence on the target bank is critical. Beyond the current status of the target bank, bank regulators will also focus on how the business of the bank will change by virtue of the application. A critical issue is the extent to which the acquirer wants to change the business and leadership of the bank. The greater the change to the bank, the more the regulators will view it as de novo from a review and information perspective, which can cause the acquisition process to become more drawn out. (For more on bank acquisitions, see Bank Mergers and Acquisitions on Practical Law.) The Regulatory Climate Over the past several years, the benefits of bank ownership have been rather illusory because it has been difficult for a fintech to obtain a bank charter due to various barriers to entry for both de novo bank formation and bank acquisition. Some of these barriers relate to the banking industry generally, but they were exacerbated by bank regulatory concerns about the fintech industry specifically. Between 2000 and 2008, over 1,000 banks were chartered (over 100 per year), while between 2010 and 2024, that number was reduced to an average of six banks per year. The Biden administration favored strict bank regulation, and a lengthy de novo bank application process deterred potential new entrants. The resistance to innovative de novo formation was also evidenced by the fact that the FDIC approved only one ILC charter (Thrivent Bank, which was a subsidiary of the $100 billion asset insurer Thrivent Financial for Lutherans) during the Biden administration. The bank M&A environment during the Biden administration also generally disfavored the acquisition of existing banks. By the fall of 2024, 507 bank mergers had been completed during the Biden administration, which was down 44% from Trump's first term. The median time for completion of a bank acquisition increased under the Biden administration, peaking at about six months in 2024. By comparison, the longest time for completion of a bank acquisition during the first Trump administration was under five months. These general constraints on de novo bank formations and existing bank acquisitions were even more keenly felt by fintechs. Federal bank regulators under Biden expressed significant skepticism about fintechs engaging with banks. For example, then-FDIC Chair Martin J. Gruenberg, discussing a proposed recordkeeping rule that would have imposed burdensome reporting and audit requirements on banks engaging with fintech providers, stated that 'FDIC staff have been monitoring issues associated with bank arrangements with third parties to deliver bank deposit products and services for some time. Recent events have underscored the significance, scale, and impact of the risks associated with some of these arrangements.' Further, then-Acting Comptroller, Michael J. Hsu, the leader of the OCC, specifically warned against the consequences of interplay between fintech and banking because non-bank institutions fall outside of the banking regulatory scheme. Hsu linked fintechs' entrance into FDIC-insured banking with under-regulation, suggesting that it could lead to familiar consequences, such as financial panic and poor banking. The skeptical attitude of federal banking agency leadership under the Biden administration served to make the already difficult environment for bank formation or acquisition even more difficult for fintechs. Fintech's ability to establish or acquire a bank is expected to improve dramatically given the current deregulatory shift from enhanced regulation to efforts to rescind or modify regulations as appropriate. Additionally, Trump has issued an Executive Order titled 'Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers,' which encourages entrance into new industries, including the banking sector, by eliminating unnecessary barriers for new market entrants. Trump's federal banking agency appointees similarly have been outspoken about their views on encouraging bank formation and permitting bank-fintech alliances. Acting FDIC Chair Travis Hill issued a statement indicating that the agency's focus in the coming months will include a more open-minded approach to innovation and technology adoption and '[e]ncourage more de novo activity so there is a healthy pipeline of new entrants in the banking sector.' Consistent with this commitment, in March 2025, the FDIC withdrew the Biden administration's recordkeeping proposal, as well as a Biden-era FDIC brokered deposit proposal that would have substantially increased the amount of deposits provided by fintechs to banks that are treated as 'brokered,' making it more difficult for banks to receive such deposits. Fintech's ability to establish or acquire a bank is expected to improve dramatically given the current deregulatory shift from enhanced regulation to efforts to rescind or modify regulations as appropriate. In an April 2025 speech, Acting FDIC Chair Hill noted that the agency is considering adjusting its bank application standards to encourage de novo bank formation and preserve the long-term viability of the community bank model. For example, certain applicants may be subject to adjustable standards, including with respect to up-front and ongoing capital expectations. Significantly, another potential improvement includes re-evaluation of how the FDIC processes deposit insurance applications from organizers proposing banks with new or innovative business models. Hill specifically recognized the benefits of bringing fintechs into the banking sphere, noting that a fintech with a large number of deposit accounts may present less risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund if it becomes a regulated bank, rather than placing deposits at multiple banks through complex partnership arrangements. Finally, in her first speech (on June 6, 2025) after becoming the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve, Governor Bowman discussed the need to streamline, and create greater transparency with respect to, de novo bank and bank merger applications. As for fintechs entering the banking sector through bank acquisitions, in May 2025, the FDIC approved the rescission of the Biden administration's more burdensome bank merger evaluation framework and returned to the less restrictive Bank Merger Statement of Policy that was previously in place. Looking Ahead The current regulatory climate presents fintechs with a rare and strategic moment to enter the banking industry. Given the tenor of the previous administration and the paucity of de novo charters in the past decade, it remains to be seen whether this regulatory approach will continue beyond the Trump administration. Therefore, a fintech considering enter the banking arena should explore its options now so a bank charter can be established before the end of the current presidential term. Several crypto firms have moved in 2025 to apply for bank charters and licensing, aiming to capitalize on the Trump administration's effort to integrate crypto currency into mainstream finance.
Finextra
3 hours ago
- Finextra
Kostas Xiradakis, ex-Viva, joins Snappi as chief commercial officer
Snappi, the first European neobank headquartered in Greece, proudly announces the appointment of Kostas Xiradakis as its new Chief Commercial Officer. 0 In this role, Kostas will lead Snappi's marketing, sales, and customer experience efforts as the company accelerates its growth and sharpens its focus on customer-first innovation. Kostas Xiradakis brings over a decade of fintech and startup leadership, with deep expertise in building, launching, and scaling innovative digital products. Most recently, he served as VP of Product & Growth at where he contributed significantly to the company's expansion across 24 European markets and helped secure its unicorn status following J.P. Morgan's 2022 investment. His unique strength lies in combining the resourcefulness of early-stage startups with the strategic execution required to scale regulated products across borders. Before Viva, Kostas helped launch multiple SaaS and consumer tech ventures from the ground up. He holds a degree in Computer Science from the University of Piraeus and completed executive education at Stanford Graduate School of Business. 'Snappi uniquely blends the trust of top-tier banking with the speed and hunger of a startup that's still figuring things out. I'm thrilled to join this dynamic team and help shape a future where banking is seamless, intuitive, and empowering for all. Most companies talk about human-centered innovation, Snappi actually has the team and culture to deliver on it,' said Kostas Xiradakis. 'I am very pleased to welcome Kostas to Snappi,' said Gabriella Kindert, CEO of Snappi. 'His appointment marks a pivotal point in our journey, as we transition from foundation-building to full-scale customer engagement. Kostas brings a strong track record in product leadership, growth strategy, and international expansion. I am confident that his experience and integrity will help us accelerate our momentum while remaining aligned with our long-term vision and core values.'
