1096. News: Singapore puts $173m behind fintechs, Plum picks Upvest, and US regulators tighten the rules

25:43I mean, it's a combination of all those things. You obviously want a forward-thinking regulator that's open to new ideas that might have regulatory sandboxes and the like. I mean, we've seen here we recently joined the FCA's scale-up unit, which is a really positive move in the right direction in terms of sort of more proportionate regulation and support for scaling banks like Oak North. It's about the talent. We're very lucky in London, or in the UK, to be able to access talent from some of the world's best universities. It's having the fact that we don't just have the regulators, but also the policy makers, number 10, number 11, all of Whitehall, kind of a few tube stops away from us.

26:34And that is something that is unique to London, because actually even in those other cities you mentioned, including New York, it's not like that. You don't have this sort of concentration of tech talent, product talent. You don't have this concentration of policymakers. You don't have this concentration of regulators. so it's very it's just it's very it's a very special place in that regard and I think we can't rest on our laurels we have to keep innovating and investing and we've seen that with things like the scale-up unit I mean that's proof that we're not sort of just resting on our laurels but I think it's a combination of all the above it's talent it's forward-thinking regulators it's the investors the capital markets the financial center it's a combination of all of those things Thank you.

27:25Todd, America often has a more sort of laissez-faire approach to regulation than Europe and most other places of the world. And that has both huge advantages and sometimes, you know, downsides. I mean, you think about sort of mobile phone development was slowed down in the States because of, you know, the lack of central government innovation. As you sort of think about some other jurisdictions like Singapore, like the UK and so on, that are maybe trying to be a bit more systematic and encouraging fintech. And then you look at the sort of diversity of regulation you have in the States. Do you think there are trade-offs, do you think there are advantages to the US system in some ways?

28:11or do you think the U.S. just doesn't have to worry about it so much because you've just got such a big, powerful economy that it's just naturally a magnet for innovation and investment anyway? No, I don't really know. I think that our laissez-faire perspective can definitely be a boon. We have quite a few fintechs that are coming to market that are trying to fill every need and every part of the tech stack, every part of or offer every type of financial service that a customer would want. It's great. At the same time, there are certainly some back office needs that are neglected when you do this.

28:53And so the fact that Singapore is funding, for example, AI adoption could be very useful here in the U.S. when dealing with AML-CFT, for example. I don't think that there are any companies that want to spend quite a lot of resources on addressing their AML concerns or AML regulatory obligations, but it is vitally important. And I think that integrating AI into that back office function could be very useful, could work to help stop money laundering and the financing of terrorism. But you might need government to put some resources into that to ensure that AI is adopted where it can be put to use in that sense.

29:42I think one thing we can definitely say is that the whole financial services and fintech industry, I really appreciate the thoughtful regulations and the way regulators are not just competing with each other, but collaborating and looking to take lessons from one market and take best practices and models that have worked in one country and apply those to others and creating not necessarily a consistency of regulation, but some sort of alignment and so on. I'd love to keep talking about this, but we've run out in time for this story. So we're going to take a pause here and be back very shortly.

30:15But really, really interesting contributions. Thank you.

30:22This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required compatibility and availability varies 18+. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more.

30:59Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a$75 sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs. Okay, before we get back to the news, we wanted to tell you about our next After Dark event in London, which is now just next Thursday. FinTech Insider hosts David Breer and Kate Moody will be joined on stage by John Hart from Sage, Alexandra Rivas-Gael from Barclay Card Payments, and Tamara Vandenban from NatWest Group.

31:37To record this very podcast, and break down the biggest news stories of next week. It's taking place at Village Underground in London on Thursday, the 17th of September, and tickets are available now at 11fs.com after dark. There's also a link in the show notes below. So don't miss out. Okay, our last main story for this week is that American regulators are finalizing rules on unsafe banking practices. So the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, have finalized rules formally defining what constitutes an unsafe or unsound banking practice in the US.

32:17The agencies first proposed the changes in October 2025. This is the first time that US bank regulators have formally codified criteria for examiners to use when determining whether a practice is unsafe or unsound. The rules are intended to give banks and examiners greater clarity and predictability during the supervisory process, replacing a more discretionary approach. The change could also affect how banks approach compliance and risk management as institutions adapt their processes to the newly codified criteria. The Federal Reserve has not yet proposed an equivalent definition, despite sharing responsibility for U.S.

32:54banking supervision and overseeing several of the country's largest banks. Todd, we were talking earlier about sort of laissez-faire practices in the States, and here we are with sort of formally codifying some of the rules. How big a deal is this? Is this just like a footnote, or is this actually a real shift in thinking and approach? Oh, that really is the million-dollar question, and I think that there are people of different minds. So, you know, under U.S. law, the regulators can bring enforcement actions and impose penalties for institutions that are engaging in unsafe or unsound practices.

33:31The law doesn't exactly explain what that is. And so as you noted, the regulators here are defining it to be mostly things that have a significant or imminent material effect on financials. That gives bankers a lot of security in knowing that only things that really materially affect their financials will be the subject of enforcement actions. At the same time, regulators were not really bringing enforcement actions for other things in the past. So this is definitely a legal change, but I don't really know if it is going to be so much of a practical change. I'll also note one thing, which is that in the past, bank examiners have provided commentary about concerns they see in banks, but those comments were not necessarily required to be resolved.

34:30And one of the things this rule does is make clear that examiners cannot raise concerns to banks for things that are not unsafe or unsound practices. So that will certainly be a change. That's interesting. I always think regulators have such a tough job because it's often obvious with hindsight you know when something's gone wrong it's like oh why didn't the regulators look at that but spotting the problems in advance is obviously much much much harder and so easy for all of us to sort of think oh why didn't they why didn't they pick up on this or pick up on that one of the things i thought was interesting here is is the sort of shift to get the examiner sort of focusing on material risks rather than sort of minor or procedural issues to try and sort of get away from i suppose that sort of tick box exercise where you know people are checking things that aren't necessarily important.

35:18How important is that? And do you think they've got that right with sort of trying to think about sort of material financial risks? I don't know. I am very much of two minds on this. I think that this is very similar to what regulators tried in roughly 2018, 2019, where they, again, pulled back on bank examiners. and we got Silicon Valley Bank's blowup. Examiners did see some concerns. Some of those concerns did end up causing the blowup, but there were other things that caused the blowup. So I think you can't tell regulators or you can't tell examiners that they have to focus on particular things that they can't necessarily see.

36:06Understanding what is going to cause a material change to a company's finances in advance, as you noted, is very difficult. Examiners can just see things that they have concerns about, but who knows if A is going to be the thing that causes a blow-up versus item B. It's really difficult. I don't envy examiners' jobs or their political bosses' jobs either. No, I don't think I'm going to look for those jobs. Valentina, leaving aside how difficult their job is, how valuable is it for you as a bank to have sort of predictability about what the regulators are looking for? Is that helpful? I mean, it's been really interesting because obviously in the UK, we work with the regulators where it's much more principles-based.

37:00So they sort of set broad standards and unexpected outcomes and they sort of expect our senior management to interpret how those principles apply to our specific business. We compared that with the U.S. where it's much more prescriptive and, you know, sort of there's a lot of compliance of checks and balances and regulatory boxes to tick rather than interpreting broad outcomes. So it's a very, very different approach. And I wouldn't say that we have one or the other that we prefer because sometimes having really, you know, everything really written clearly in stone can be very helpful. Other times, actually, with a bit more room for interpretation, there's potentially a bit more room for innovation.

37:39I think, you know, kind of linked to one of our earlier stories, there can sometimes be this inherent conflict between regulators and the sort of government agenda or economic agenda, because if regulation is seen to be hindering the growth of a certain sector or indeed certain businesses, then there can sort of be pressure, whether it's direct or more subtle. You know, and we saw this last year with, you know, I mean, I guess the most famous example was with Revolut and the sort of meeting with Andrew Bailey and the chancellor and the sort of need to keep things separate, but at the same time, appreciating that Revolut, you know, is a hugely successful business that's generating a huge amount of tax income for the treasury and employing, you know, thousands of people and is, you know, potentially the business that will, you know, come out of Europe as a hundred billion plus valuation in the future.

38:37And so there's a government need to kind of desire to keep them happy and to keep them here and to potentially list here. And if they feel that the regulators aren't being helpful or in fact are hindering their growth and hindering their ability to pursue their ambitions, then that can obviously impact their desire to keep scaling here. So I think regulators often have that challenge as well to grapple with in terms of the conflict that there may be with governments and the sort of economic agenda and staying competitive to Singapore's investment as an example, and then what the regulators need to do to hopefully be complementary to that agenda versus obstructing it.

39:17Those are such, such interesting points. I'm fascinated by your contrast between the sort of American regulatory approach and the British regulatory approach, particularly in the context of, you know, a number of European digital banks that have tried to expand into the States and found it maybe harder than they expected. is one way of putting it. And also your points about sort of political interference or political involvement in financial regulation. And, you know, I think back to the global financial crisis and the great loosening of regulations that happened before everything turned upside down.

39:49Totally. And if you think about, I mean, how many headlines have we read this year about, and last year, about FinTech saying that, you know, because of the Trump administration, there's a general view that it'll be perhaps a more favorable environment for foreign banks to get new licenses or foreign neobanks foreign fentex to get banking licenses in the US versus the previous Biden administration so you know I think it's interesting to see in different markets where how sort of big the gap is between government and regulators how closely do they work together where there's sort of obviously that inherent conflict, they do need to operate independently of each other to be effective.

40:32But at the same time, I think those pressures come, you know, and they need to appreciate that businesses will want to keep investing in a market where the regulatory environment is seen to be more favorable. Thank you. Rashmi, just quickly from a product standpoint, point, do you prefer sort of regulatory certainty or a bit of regulatory ambiguity? You mentioned earlier the UK sort of changing investment rules and the ability to now give customers a little bit of a sort of nudge towards the right investment decision. And, you know, we've heard other people sort of say, well, the rules are a bit ambiguous.

41:08It's a bit unclear how it works. What's your view? Is it better to have real clarity or do you like a little bit of ambiguity because it enables you maybe to be a little bit more creative in finding better solutions for customers. Is there such a thing as regulatory certainty? I mean, I guess a lot of regulation isn't open to interpretation, at least if you're sort of innovating in that space. I think it is definitely easier when there's a clear list of do's and don'ts, but that does stifle to some extent innovation. And I think the customer eventually then suffers because, businesses are sort of like incentivized to like check a box and you know if it isn't prohibited you sort of end up doing it and that might be commercially beneficial.

41:52So I definitely think some ambiguity is helpful in terms of I think also Val mentioned that it's quite helpful for innovation because then you can put the customer front and center you can sort of approach a solution very differently than a lot of your competitors are and that would end up with better outcomes for users more choice you know more choice around what they prefer. So I think the preference, as much as I'd like to say certainty is ideal in terms of it makes our jobs simpler, I definitely think some regulatory ambiguity has fueled a lot of innovation within the hard parts around fintech.

42:30If I'm talking about credit or if I'm talking about market expansion or, you know, in the sense, the harder outcome-led decisions that we need to make for our customers, I think there's some ambiguity definitely fuels more creativity. Thank you. Todd, let's throw it back to you to end on. You talked about Silicon Valley Bank, and of course there have been a couple of other smaller U.S. banks that sort of failed in the past few years. So obviously this is a really crucial topic for the American regulators, just as it is for regulators in all markets. There is this sort of tension here between sort of rules and judgment.

43:02Ultimately, do you think this change is going to help and help the sort of examiners and the regulators focus on the sort of most important material things? Or do you think that this actually isn't going to help avert the risk of future, or reduce the risk of future calamities? Yeah, I mean, I don't think that this will end up allowing examiners to focus on the things that I think their bosses want them to focus on, which is the material financial risks. The fact of the matter is that examiners are going to see what they see, and they are going to write down in their exam reports the things that they see.

43:54If you limit what they can write down to things that involve material financial risks, that's not going to stop them from seeing the other things. It's also not going to allow them to see new things that they haven't seen before. It's just going to reduce the information flow between examiners and banks. There are some that really see that as a plus. I know there are bankers who think that when examiners identify a concern, it means that the bank immediately has to fix that. And so not getting that information allows them to run their bank the way that they want to run it. But at the end of the day, what I see is going to happen here is really just reduce the flow of information for better or for worse.

44:44Thank you. All right. We'll take a quick pause here, and we will be back very shortly.

44:53This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required, compatibility and availability varies 18+.

45:21Okay, now for a quick look at a story we don't have time to cover in full. And that's because this story is just broken. Revolut has achieved conditional OCC approval for U.S. national bank status. So Revolut has received the conditional approval from the U.S. officer of the controller of the currency to form a national bank. Revolut is now working through the remaining applications and approvals with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and awaiting final approval from the OCC as it progresses towards its planned 2027 launch of the proposed American bank. Once all approvals are received, Revolut will be able directly to offer American customers a wide range of banking products, including loans, credit cards, FDIC-ensured deposits, as well as access to stablecoins and cryptocurrencies.

46:12Beyond the Americas, Revolut has continued its global push in 2026, obtaining bank licenses in France, Australia, and the UK, a payments license in the United Arab Emirates, and is progressing a bank license application in Finland and South Africa. Revolut founder and chief executive Nick Strzoronsky says the company remains on track to reach 100 million customers by mid-2027. So this is big news. took Revolut a while to get that British banking license. But now that it has that in place, getting an American banking license is a huge achievement that many European digital banks have struggled.

46:52So what this does is it sets up a really interesting competition between Brazil's new bank and Revolut to say, can anyone crack, can any digital bank from outside the States crack the American banking market and deliver new, better, cheaper, faster digital banking services to Americans. So bring it on. Fascinating news. And finally, Britons lose£171 million of food a year to seagulls, apparently. New research from Compare the Market estimates that seagulls are responsible for£171 million worth of stolen food in the UK each year. The estimate is based on a survey of 2 ,000 UK adults, with 71 % saying they have had food stolen or targeted by a seagull.

47:47Among those surveyed, the average reported value of food involved in a theft or attempted theft was£5.50. Fish and chips were the most commonly targeted food, followed by sandwiches and ice cream. Compare the market has responded by launching what it calls the UK's first gull guarantee at Peter's Fish Factory in Margate. Customers whose fish and chips are stolen by a seagull can receive a free replacement with Compare the Market providing a£1 ,000 fund to cover replacement while funds last. Well, I think this is a brilliant piece of PR. I'm very suspicious of the maths because it implies that 71 % of adults having food stolen from there every year.

48:29and really do British people spend that much time on the beach? However, it's quite a fun story. So, Rashmi, do we think seagulls are Britain's most successful organised crime network? I don't. Well, at the risk of, you know, angering the seagulls, probably very successful crime network. Todd, I presume you have this problem in the States too of birds swiping down on ice cream or anything else that people are eating near the beach. Do you also have seagulls? I guess you do. We do, yes. Yeah. Are they a notorious pest on the beach? They absolutely are a notorious pest on the beach. They will swipe everything, just as I imagine they do in the UK.

49:19I imagine that 171 million pounds a year, let's apply that to the size of the United States. that is a lot of stolen french fries as we call them and your dignity don't people learn i mean i mean it happened like it happens to everyone once but then surely you get a bit savvier and and you know so the fight you know your five-year-old yes he's he or she's going to have their ice cream swiped but surely most adults are managing to avoid this this theft are they not i don't know i think i think it's really scary if a like seagull was to swoop down and try to to steal your fish and chips or your ice cream or whatever.

49:56I mean, I did see one. I was in Brighton earlier this summer, and there was one which sort of said cone and cover, so a similar sort of thing where if you lost your ice cream, you could kind of get a replacement one if they saw it, I guess, if they saw that you'd lost it to a seagull. I don't know. I think it depends on where you are in the country, how aggressive the seagulls are. It's going to be a range of factors, But I don't know if it's something you can really prepare for. So it's nice to have the insurance there. And as you say, it's a very nice PR stunt. I don't suspect they are having to refund many people or give them, many people are kind of calling up on this insurance.

50:39Do we think this is an insurance product that everybody finally wants because everyone understands what the risk is? I think it's a good one for financial literacy. If you want to explain to people what insurance is, this is a fairly simple way to explain an example of insurance. I'm pretty sure I could explain this to my four-year-old and he'd probably get the gist and that could be a nice gateway to explaining more complex insurance products. All right, last question for you. Does anyone have any ridiculously specific risks in their life that they genuinely pay to insure against? Do you have any other comparable bird-related or random pests or annoyances?

51:30I will say the only thing I can think is we obviously in the U.S. have prediction markets that are growing. And I would love to enter into a swap to hedge my risk of a seagull stealing my fishing ships. Nice. My wife is furious because twice on holiday recently she's had a bird accurately dumping its load on top of her, which is said to be good luck, but always feels like good luck on the bird's part rather than her part. so maybe she can get some cover for that. She needs to buy a lottery ticket. She does. All right. Thank you so much to the three of you. You've been brilliant. I've really enjoyed today's conversation.

52:11I wish we'd had more time. Where can people find out a little bit more about each of you and your companies? Valentina, where can people find out more about you and more about Oak North? Sure. So if you want to connect with me directly, you can reach out to me on LinkedIn, Valentina Christensen. And if you want to find out more about Oak North, it's oaknorth.com. And Rashmi, where can people find out more about you and more about Plum? To find out more about me, obviously LinkedIn, it's Rashmi D'Souza. To find out more about Plum, with Plum.com. And Todd, where can people find out more about you and Klaros Advisors?

52:44I am also on LinkedIn, Todd Phillips. You can find us at Klaros at Klaros.com. And I am Todd at KlarosGroup.com. Fantastic. And that's me, Benjamin Ensel. you can find me on LinkedIn and you can find out allabout11fs at 11fs.com. So that wraps up today's episode. Thank you so much for listening to the show. Please do follow us on your favorite podcast platform and share the podcast with a colleague or a friend. If you want to join the conversation, seek us on social media. Just search for 11FS or FinTech Insider, or you can email us at podcasts at 11fs.com. So thank you again so much to my three guests and thank you to everyone for listening.

53:27Fall is the perfect time to refresh and reorganize your space. At the Home Depot, find power tools and tool sets starting at$50 to help tackle DIY projects, home updates, and more. Whether you're drilling brackets to support new shelving or sharpening your hedge trimmer blade with an angle grinder, the Home Depot has the tools you need to check projects off your list. Shop Labor Day Savings at The Home Depot and gear up for fall projects with the right tools to keep your projects moving. I didn't like what you said, Odin pauses, about the future. This is the love story of real hinge couple Odin and Edward, written and read by me, Curtis Garner.

54:10Listen to the free audiobook now. Have you heard that McDonald's spicy chicken McNuggets made with spicy tempura and a blend of aged cayenne are back? Remember to grab a few extra napkins. For a limited time at participating McDonald's.