Travers Clarke-Walker – full transcript of the podcast

Read in 22 minutes

Listen to the entire episode with Travers here:


Here is the full transcript of podcast episode, enjoy!

Helene Panzarino: [00:00:00]

Welcome to another episode of banking on air I’m Helene Panzarino. And I’m your host for this episode of vacuum labs, where a solution-based tech powerhouse. And we believe that the future is in communities when it comes to digital transformation and financial services. If you’re interested in hearing more about FinTech, digital banking or payments, please don’t hesitate to subscribe or to attend one of our virtual events. And today I’m going to be joined by Travers Clarke-Walker, who is the Chief Commercial Officer of Thought Machine. Before we get into the meat of the matter, I would just like to say that recently Vacuumlabs and Thought Machine announced a partnership after the successful implementation of Vault in Hong Kong, which is also another reason we’re very happy to have Travers with us today. Previously we also had the pleasure of hosting Paul Taylor, the CEO of Thought Machine on a podcast with my colleague, Marcel Klimo who also spoke with Mark Warrick about Cauldron, the creative lab of Thought Machines. Lots of information, and very interesting topic and chat from Thought Machine. If you missed it, I encourage you to go back over the old podcast episodes because I’m sure you’re going to learn and be thoroughly enjoyed and entertained is the word I’m looking for. Because I’m sure you’re going to learn a lot and find them very entertaining and enjoyable. Onto today’s podcast with Travers, Travers welcome.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:01:30]

Thank you very much.

Helene Panzarino: [00:01:31]

Lovely to have you. You and I are going to dig a little bit deeper into legacy core banking systems converting, moving to the cloud. Is it different in different parts of the world or is it really something that should be the tech should enable us to just transport and deal with the regulatory environment elsewhere cultural environment elsewhere? Really important because right now the upsurge in digital banking obviously spurred on by COVID has just been off the charts. Customers are changing the way they bank. The banks themselves are having to adjust to the way that we bank. And if you weren’t digital before COVID kicked in, you definitely are going to have to go there now. If you were, you need to accelerate it, but as with so many things, and I think we’ve talked about this before. Traditionally incumbents, in my experience have been resistant to the cloud for reasons around security or not really understanding the difference between versions of the cloud. They can’t really appreciate the cost efficiencies so on. And I think in the last couple of years, we’ve seen this changing. I certainly know my experience from 2017 until now there’s been a big change. Maybe we can also unpack what does the right core look like and what is involved in either migrating or starting a fresh in the clouds. Okay. Let’s start with what factors need to be considered and all factors, resources, competition, constraints,regulatory constraints for example, if you’re thinking of a weighing up moving to the cloud?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:03:03]

Okay. Wow. What an amazing introduction in terms of the transition point, the inflection point that we’re having as an industry at large. One of the things to weigh up in terms of a transition to the cloud at your point in introduction that the world has moved on a lot. COVID has in some respects, been an accelerator of that. But truth be known all the banks in the world have been going through some version of digital transformation journey over the last decade. And a lot of that has been at if you like the frontend of the experience. I guess what banks tend to call the channels, which has been the apps and it’s been the online banking. But true digital transformation goes much deeper than that and expensive digital transformation also has to take into account cloud migration to your point. What are the things to weigh up? I guess first and foremost amongs, those you perhaps expect me to say it from a Thought Machine perspective is choosing technology that is born of the clouds generation as well. And that means truly cloud native architecture, microservices, containerized deployed through Cobblerneties. Ideally cloud agnostic so that you can see on any of the cloud service providers. The choice of the technology that you’re putting in the cloud is as important as if you like the psychology position or if your intent to move to the cloud. There is a world of difference between moving a previous generation of technology onto cloud infrastructure. Frankly, what we’re doing is moving the applications from one set of boxes, to another set of boxes and changing who’s taking accountability and responsibility for them as opposed to taking full benefits of what cloud provides is that infrastructure tool for the business. So that’s the first. The second is the organizational competency. There is a competency requirement in terms of addressing cloud infrastructure. That’s understanding what’s available from the vendors, understanding how you’re going to build your technology stack. Having people within the organization have the competency to manage those technology stacks, so there is a competency play that needs to be brought in and checking and balancing within the bank that you have those competencies. And if you can’t, where can you buy them in from. So can the vendors in the context of us as Thought Machine can we bring that? Can Vacuumlabs, bring it as a competency set in terms of being able to provide support and wrap around services? And can you buy it in internally, either through recruitment and or through development and training of the existing IT and technology functions? The competency that the business exhibit. So that would perhaps be the second. And the third is the regulatory environment. What is the appetite? Has the regulator in your area recognized the benefits of cloud infrastructure? If they have, what are they saying in terms of the contractual relationships you need to have, the relationships with vendors and with the cloud infrastructure providers themselves. And if they haven’t, what needs to be done to enable a local environment regulatory and legal, that satisfactorily means that you can migrate to the cloud. So I think that kind of three areas, perhaps. Technology, competency and regulatory and legal environments.

Helene Panzarino: [00:06:08]

Wonderfull. As you were talking, I was thinking about the US with a complex regulatory environment with what has been, let’s say a more fragmented and large. Obviously a banking and finance sector from the large banks down to the smaller banks. We have literally tens of thousands of banks are floating around and state by state obviously makes the federal versus the state requirements different. As opposed to the UK where we have few regulators, one or two regulators that are involved in this. And then again, when we go back to someplace like Hong Kong, we’ve had the experience of working together where they’re just starting to issue for example, virtual licenses. The regulatory environment is very different. And yet I think that we can avoid, if we’re going to do this efficiently, cost efficiently respond to what’s happened over the last year to retain,a customers and do that efficiently, we need to do it as a global, if you’d like taking the technology, importing it globally. But is that difficult?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:07:03]

I think,  again, this probably comes to a point around what technology you’re looking to deploy. Completely modernly architected applications. And if I put it in the context of our core banking system, to some extent it is regulatory agnostic. It is designed for you to be able to build products and services that can marry up to any regulatory regime. We use smart contracts as a process of building the bank grade product. So our current account mortgage alone are built as a small contract and all that really means is that independent and orchestrated away from the Kernel.  That means that you’ve got flexibility and manufacturing. Now, traditional systems haven’t had that. So traditional core banking systems have had the products kind of hard coded within them. If you like the kind of closed box versus open box style modules. To your point, if you were trying to build a bank in New York or build a bank in Hong Kong or go to the bank in London, if you’re choosing the right technology, then arguably you can build the same bank in each of those markets, adhere to local regulatory, be that state or federal obligations and then relaunch the same bank in other markets. Now, there may be some local variations in those but flexibly and modernly architected application allows you to make those modifications without an enormous degree of cost or time being the problem, which is traditionally what has been the case with previous generation, of course. In many regards, it comes back to the same point, which is the right choice of technology allows flexibility of where and how you can deploy.

Helene Panzarino: [00:08:32]

Truly interesting, because I think people assume that you couldn’t do that, that it had to be very specific. And I’m sure that there’s a little bit of a lack of understanding fully about the technology and how that will then be deployed. And as you were talking about core, I was thinking about people being bound by 5 or 10 year contracts with certain core providers, who rarely do I hear somebody say my current core provider is amazing and wish that they would work with more FinTechs and then you wind up having almost like an additional layer of platform layer between the FinTech world and the core provider world, because neither of them are able to work efficiently or sufficiently, and it just gets more complex and more expensive.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:09:12]

It was kind of interesting points in there. First to which of course is that people don’t say their core banking providers are amazing. We’re here to change that. Our mission is that of course, people can turn around and say, well, my core banking providers are amazing. So let’s start out without, that as our objective, as an organization and we are here to transform the industry and that translation agenda is one that’s deep seated in the organization. We built the technology from the ground up for this generation of users, for this generation of technology, infrastructure capabilities and to serve the future set of product requirements. We’ve been very static in what types of products banks have been able to produce as well. And there should be more flexibility in the types of products. The way we’ve architected it allows for all of that. So in that regard, we should be able to amaze customers, both our banking client customer, but the banks be able to amaze their customers as well. Your point on the five-year kind of lock-in, what I’ve got this contract with this vendor for a period of time. I mean, to some extent, we also have to recognize that transformation programs are quite long and big programs in Nove???, right. And even if you have got two or three or five years left on existing vendor relationships, I would argue, that’s not a point not to start. It’s in fact a reason to start because you will want to validate a wider technology stack, you will want to integrate other FinTech parties and you will want to potentially redesign products and services and offerings and your operations model and so on. There are large programs and actually the majority of our customers around the world are doing some form of transformation program that has started as some version of a digital greenfield, that might be a small migration of a book of business into a digital greenfield bank. It might be the case of building a brand new bank sometimes under a new brand. There is a development cycle of the transformation. It’s building the new technology stack, it’s placing a cohort of business on it, which means we recognize that of course calls, are going to have to live side by side for a period of time. We and Vacuumlabs   have experience in how that can be created and done. I guess the short version is even if you’ve got five years left to run on our existing vendor license, that in itself is not a reason not to make a start on your transformation program.

Helene Panzarino: [00:11:32]

I think if people don’t hear anything else besides that from this podcast, you’ve done your job, because I think we need to get people not looking for excuses, but finding ways to enable. For me, that’s like music to my ears. I wanted to go back and touch on the vendor selection as it were, or vendor partnerships as well. I mentioned chorus partnering with FinTechs. We talked about you partnering with a Vacuumlabs. How do you choose a vendor to work with and what makes a good partnership?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:11:57]

Yeah, so the only thing I would say is that it is a team sport. A core banking system is not a bank, a side provider isn’t a manufacturer or bank either or a banks technology provider. It is a collaboration environment, in that regard it’s a team sport. I think the first part of the answer is generational alignment. If you are looking to build a new technology stack, you need to populate it with technologies that are of the same generation, which means if you’re wrapping around a core banking system, you still need fraud and risk analytic tools. You’d still need KYC. You still need onboarding journeys. You still need digital frontends. By far and away, the easiest way is API integrations with one another, where they’re all from the same generation. That massively accelerates. The one thing that I’ve regularly said, and it’s a bit of a quarter, I guess, to the FinTech industry is great technology doesn’t necessarily lead you to a bank buying. There is a load of other stuff that the FinTech industry has to do actually, which is getting the organization fit to contract with a bank. And that is as much of understanding the legal requirements that a bank will have, or have a requirement for, the backdrop of the regulatory environment that you’re effectively subscribing up to as a result of working with the bank, showing the internal governance and control and policy frameworks, and so on. So actually the relationship is much more than just providing for the technology. It’s also having an organization that is fit. to  contract with a bank and then identifying if you like the coalition of partners who are also fit to work with the bank. So it is that combination of all of those parts. But the absolute point in there, it is a collaboration of partners working together as seamlessly as they can to build an entirely new technology stack and we’ve partnered up. We have other partners. I won’t sit here and run a promotion for each of them, but we have quite a range of partners and they range from that kind of strap house advisory style services to the SI and integration providers through to the FinTech community at large as vendors. It is a case of working with all of those quite often under the banks selection process. The one thing I would say that would be wrong for us is this part of the industry is for us to impose our views of what the right partners are. We can facilitate our views as to the types of partners we’ve got around. If a bank has to take, all the banks, have to build a capability to identify those partners by selection and assessment themselfs.

Helene Panzarino: [00:14:21]

It’s a good point and I do wonder sometimes, especially if it’s unfamiliar territory or if there’s a lot at stake, it, depending on the size of the bank and the person making the decision, that they haven’t got those skills. And so there is a responsibility on us as an industry to educate people as to how, what good looks like. I agree with that. And in our cases, I mean as it happens, we have an office in Hong Kong. We did some work together in Hong Kong. We’re in the UK. We’re in Europe. We have an office in the US. So we’re finding ourselves in similar places. And I think in the US now in the last, let’s say, I don’t know, a couple of years, we’ve seen the OCC and the FDIC. The FDIC, particularly on the yellow and the McWilliams wants to have a list of Fintechs that have been approved or vetted, curated. The same way that we have the FCA here, for example, that will say, yeah, these fintechs have been approved by us and they’re good to go. And I think that gives confidence to the industry or saves time, saves money, but also says, yeah, they’ve done it, they’re okay. They’ve been through some sort of process making it easier to decide who might be in that group to pick and choose from. Slowly, I guess it’s happening around the world.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:15:23]

It is and we have seen quite progressive behaviors from a number of regulators around innovation hubs and sandpits and those types of things. We’ve also seen very proactive behavior from banks taking the fintechs into the regulators and saying, we’ve done the necessary assessments. We have looked as they, this technology as if it were our own and validated it accordingly.  The combination of those things is regulators are getting to a point of saying I’ve seen this deployed, or I’m satisfied that this bank has done the necessary assessments. I don’t know whether or not it’s a formalized list of approved Fintechs in the context of UK regulation. There is no such thing as an approved vendor, because of course it’s the bank’s responsibility. But I think what we do have is a confidence level being built up. It’s incumbent on all of us to play our part in the development of that confidence level within regulators.

Helene Panzarino: [00:16:17]

I agree with you and I think we should take that responsibility on this industry. I want to deviate a little bit because your background is really interesting. You’ve gone through not just the banking and finance as an industry obviously. You’ve worked in other industries before. Energy for example, and other places. Do you see parallels in anything that can be learned or that can be transferred from one industry into banking and finance in this space?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:16:39]

I do, you’re right. I have very diverse background retail into energy, into financial services and then into financial services technology, I guess. There are always cross learnings between industries. I think the most pertinent one at the moment for banking and financial services and the technology provision and financial services is the proof of cloud. We said at the beginning, we’re at that transition point. But we’re at a transition point for a technology type that has been proven in other industries and whether or not we look at it through media or retail, those industries have been using cloud infrastructure, enterprise grade scale for well over a decade. And yes, in some respects, some of it was born in those industries or certainly close proximity to those industries. But what it does mean is that you can look across and go, okay, this has dramatically changed the cost ratios and then banking context starts to cost income ratio. It’s transformed the customer experiences that have been able to be created and in many regards it has seeing the fortunes of businesses that did adopt and didn’t adopt go respectively in those directions. And those that did adopt to the very successful in large players and those that didn’t in some regards no longer with us at all. So I think that point of transition and the proof of cloud as an infrastructure choice for business transformation is now done. It’s been done in other industries, but that is something to look at and go, yes, we are absolutely at that point. Perhaps, that’s the regulatory point. Perhaps the thing that we needed was for the regulators also to get to, yes,  it is now a proven technology that we can rely upon in the financial services industry. The one big learn is we’re talking about a transformation on proven technology and proven application types and proven software development methodologies.

Helene Panzarino: [00:18:32]

When you mentioned the regulator, I was thinking about someone saying to me, they went to the PRA in the UK where you go through your feedback when you’re looking for a banking license and they said, so where’s the data stored and they sat in the cloud and they said, where in the cloud and they said, we don’t know. As opposed to, well, there’s five rooms of mainframe somewhere that we can point you in the direction of. And the regulator looking at them like you don’t know? This is a few years ago.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:18:55]

Yeah. I was going to say, now I think we have better answers in that we do know exactly where it is within the cloud and we can manage where it is within the cloud. It gives you choices in terms of how federated that might be.

Helene Panzarino: [00:19:05]

Yeah, kudos to the regulators, they’ve moved pretty quickly into recognizing this. The other point that you brought up is the customer centric point and of course, in other industries, be they music or fashion at the customer centric position was there in the beginning. Whereas somehow in banking and financial services, we took longer to get there somehow. I suppose, built on products and services with margins and targets that work inside out in their view, as opposed to outside in. So is customer centricity the thing that really would have pushed it over the edge?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:19:37]

Perhaps. If you’re asking, why has it been a slow adoption, I think we also have to recognize that banking, it’s a risk business. It is in many respects, risky in terms of the provision of the products and services. It is critical infrastructure in many regards as well. And I don’t think you play with critical infrastructure without proven points of validation of the technologies that you’re choosing. I think we can be respectful of the delay. I don’t think we can be respectful of now not moving though. I think that this is the point of change. I’m not talking about the digitalization of front-end. We’d all recognize that’s already happened. If there’s actually none of us that don’t use some version of digital banking and even if you don’t use digital banking, actually a lot of what you’re presented within a branch network for instance, is actually relying upon the digital frontends that have been created. You just don’t really observe that. Transformation has happened, but only at the top end, shall we say of the systems. So this is the full digital transformation. It has to be done in a safe and secure way. The technologies have to be proven. We’ve repeated a few times that we’ve now reached that point where they are and they’re accessible and the FinTech community at large has pretty much sold for all of the component parts of banking. If you look around, we’ve talked that the regulators have also become accepting of it. I think the bits that kind of really push now for why the change, it’s what else you can do with it. Because it’s not that you necessarily would just repeat a design of what a bank currently looks like. It’s what you can do in new experiences. Real time data that allows you to develop different frameworks for risk appetite, different frameworks for fraud monitoring, different frameworks for analysis and insights on product offerings. It also allows you to develop entirely new product. Products have tended to be pretty standardized in terms of interest rate calculations or propensity of payment or any of those types things. But that’s because they were difficult to manufacture in the system. So once you’ve manufactured it, you didn’t really want to change it too much. There’s a complexity in doing that. Flexible systems, obviously context for this is Vault and smart contracts, allow you to kind of almost rip up the rule book to some of those things. So, I can experiment with new products, I can design new interpretations of these things. And at low cost of doing that, creating better experiences and having the propensity to delight customers. You referenced Mark and Paul have been on previous podcasts. In Mark’s piece he will have done a Cauldron part of our business, which is kind of our development lab if you like. That allows you to kind of manufacture all sorts of new products and services. They favor all sorts of different interpretations as to financial instruments. The fact that those things are possible now mean that banks can create new engaging relationships propositions that just were not possible for. They were just extremely costly. Therefore, the reason to do them was quite often offset by the difficulty and complexity and cost, meaning they’d never gained to market.

Helene Panzarino: [00:22:37]

It’s interesting. You say that because there’s always been that criticism of monolith versus micro and all the new challenges in the neos that came onto the market saying, we can do this because we’re agile, we’re built on a very low cost platform and we’re all plugged in through  APIs. There is a cost implication there, and if you’re not there in the first place, you’re probably not going to do it and bring it to life. So there may have been a desire, but if the technology wasn’t there, then it makes it that much more difficult. Is it different for a very large bank, do you think than it is for lets say that a tier two or tier three bank in this environment as well, because the large bank probably has a bigger IT department, bigger spending budgets, a bigger customer base, maybe more of a need and an ability to run them sort of side by side while they’re transitional for their old core?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:23:19]

There are definitely differences. I think you can argue that the larger bank probably has a more complex set of systems, but I think you can also argue that it has a cost ratio that it’s spending at the moment that can be more readily redeployed. It has a breadth of technologists. That means that it can probably more easily stand up competency. That’s not exclusively the case of course, but I think you can go, okay, fine. That scale it’s more complex, but they probably have more people and they have more budgetary reallocation that can be applied to it and proceed to an outcome. On the other hand, if you take the mid tear that slightly less complex IT infrastructure. Probably serves to an easier transformation journey and that may be offset by the fact that there isn’t that such a requirement for a breadth of competency in order to do that and as we’ve said before, the industry in support in terms of FinTech and the partners in the FinTech system are also building competency to assist these banks. You can buy in the necessary competencies and you may be dealing with a slightly less complex set of infrastructure to change in the first place. So I think to some extent, yes, they are different and they’re probably different in terms of the timelines of the programs, but neither is a reason for not progressing forward.

Helene Panzarino: [00:24:35]

No and I think over the past year, we’ve seen lots of examples of 60 in the large banks and exit from the US as well, where they definitely do need to move. The customer does very much need to come first and I think you could be complacent for a long time because you had cash reserves or you had millions and millions of customers. You could sit back, you could watch this whole thing play out in front of you, but I think the last year was one of those defining moments in banking and finance, where we say, okay, this is it. Everyone had to become digital because we couldn’t go anywhere else. Whether your demographic is 70 plus or it’s 20, everybody had to go digital

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:25:07]

There can be no excuse for  not taking the opportunity to lower the cost base of an industry. Whatever industry that is, if the opportunity is there irrespective of cash reserves. As far back as thinkers, 2018, Mark Carney at the time, Governor of Bank of England were saying there was 30 plus percent reduction in costs if cloud infrastructure were deployed into banks and up to similar numbers in terms of things like fraud detection rates and so on. The technology enables lower cost base, real time data flows. They enhance both cost reduction but also customer experiences as we’ve said. We haven’t talked that much about the end customer, but the opportunity for the customer to have better experience is whether or not that’s richer onboarding journeys, whether or not that’s better insight about their financial behavior or better designed products. And what I mean by depth better design products is products that are more directly relevant to them. In a borrowing scenario, borrowing in such a way that it’s directly relevant to your income streams and the management of income and so on. You know, have one of our banks building out a propositions for what they call solopreneurs, so individual contractor types. Who we know have bumpy income streams, and they look different and we know that there’s arranging from the gig economy upwards. We know that there’s a changeing working patterns and working behaviors. But bank products have not tended to be designed to take into account the local constitution of the individual, but that now is possible. Lower costs, richer experience, by the experiential level of an onboarding or a transaction experience and rich products are all within the grasp of the industry. That can be no excuses for anybody not to pursue that.

Helene Panzarino: [00:26:50]

No, exactly. It’s the pencil movement is ideal. It’s lowering your costs, but getting more money and then making your customer happy, stay longer, better lifetime value.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:26:58]

Clearly, the risk of somebody else doing that instead of you.

Helene Panzarino: [00:27:01]

Be that a FinTech or a nonfinancial institution, and many of them are making a lot of noise at the moment as well. And I think behind that, some of the things that you’ve talked about, I was drawn to open banking, obviously of PSD2 open banking, we’re seeing that now spread around the world where I can share my data as a customer and then you have that two way traffic in terms of the extracting the intelligence from my data, but it’s also shared, and you can offer me something more hyper-personalized to me, which is what I want and what, in our case, in the UK, the CMA mandated for, but we’re seeing that around the world voluntarily or otherwise.  Listening to the journey you think you’d ask yourself, why would somebody not see this now? It does feel to me you’re obviously more in the thick of it, but it feels to me on the periphery that there is a groundswell and that everybody is a bit more accepting now everyone’s understood this and that the last year just kind of moved it along and accelerated a bit?

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:27:52]

Anybody isn’t thinking about doing it. I of course may live in an echo chamber as well because anybody who talks to us is clearly thinking about doing it. But I suspect there are no banks, financial institutions that are not thinking about doing it. And haven’t already started in some respects on that journey. I also think it can potentially be quite daunting and challenging. If you just look at the FinTech industry at large and how much information we consume from different FinTechs and the stories and the business models that are building up the time, there is just an enormous amount of information out there and whether or not you’ve got a formal kind of market scouting function, that’s out there looking for the next generation of technologies or whether or not you’re just trying to read and keep up to date with all the blogs. There is an enormous amount of transformation going on and that’s complimented with a lot of commentary and a lot of information and a lot of people saying they know what the answer is. I spent 10 years in the bank and one of the things I did find quite daunting was kind of the well okay which of these things do we choose? How do we make a decision about which direction. For this part of the journey I would say starting is more important than thinking. I’ve said in earlier on in the podcast, we are seeing a material move to the creation of a digital Greenfield bank and what you put in it, whether or not that’s an orphaned book of business or a back book of business or a new brand, to some extent, those choices don’t matter as much of the principle of building a new digital Greenfield stack. Then identifying what you put in it to some extent may be a result of what’s your most engaging business model internally. If you’ve got something that’s sitting on a very expensive cost base that you think you can move, then that’s an advantage for that bank. If on the other hand, you’re looking for a market entry under a new banking license has been awarded somewhere in the world and you can do that under a new stack, then that’s your business case for doing it. Each of those business cases is different, but they’re all built on the same foundation, which is a new stack. And they’re all built on the foundation of that new stack. Long-term purpose should be for the full bank transformation. If you’re doing a new stack without the purpose of full bank transformation, then that’s probably a mistake. And if you’re not doing one and you’re still considering it, then that is also probably a mistake.

Helene Panzarino: [00:30:07]

Very interesting and I suppose then that goes back to having the buy in from the top down and from the bottom up, because your plan needs to be going in that direction. You need everyone behind it. And I think you’ve very succinctly addressed that the technology and the fact that we need to be aware of what the technologies are and educate our community as to what that is, but realize that it is portable regulations aside and some other local flavors aside, that we need to build up the competency within our organizations. And we as an industry and banks also have a responsibility to work on that together. Needs to be able to make the right choices in the right vendor that fits each of the different situations and have vendors that have robust governance and that can meet the regulatory requirements, so everyone can also relax about that. And that it’s most important to actually just get started and not stay in that. Whenever I talk about having too much choice, I’ve always take myself back to the US. When I go home, I stand in the salad dressing aisle of a supermarket and you look down that aisle and you see low fat, pepper, chili, blah, blah, next one, over high fat ranch. And when I get to the whole aisle, I always wind up with oil and vinegar and some salt and pepper. Because too much choice without having any knowledge in a way that speaks to me and I can digest either these paralysis or doing what you’ve always done.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:31:29]


Helene Panzarino: [00:31:30]

It is up to us also to help people to avoid that paralysis.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:31:33]

It is up to us to be able to signal which choices could be made, which ones work with one another, which integrations have been done and have been proven. And I said earlier on in the podcast is not for us to dictate to a bank, what technology choices they should make or what vendors they should select, but we should certainly be laying out the path of which ones we’ve seen successfully work elsewhere.

Helene Panzarino: [00:31:56]

I think that’s a wonderful place for us to say thank you very much to Travers Clark-Walker for being with us. I’m very happy that we’re working closely with our partnership together with Vacuumlabs and thank you to everyone who’s been listening.

Travers Clarke-Walker: [00:32:08]

Been a great pleasure. Thank you very much.

Helene Panzarino: [00:32:10]

And please everybody subscribe and let your friends, families and other colleagues know about us as well. And we’ll see you on the next episode. Thank you very much.


About Vacuumlabs

Vacuumlabs provides teams of flexible software engineers and designers with years of experience building fintech, online marketplaces, and digital products. Every step of the way, Vacuumlabs experts collaborate with clients, so that they can move fast, learn and iterate as they build world-class products together.