The new fintech moat is ‘boring’


The ‘Letter from the Editor’ series features exclusive insight and opinion-driven analysis from Tearsheet editor Sara Khairi. The focus is on linking ideas, questioning assumptions, and tracking shifts across both mature and emerging trends in financial services.

This is now PRO-only content. Subscribe to PRO so you never miss a Letter from the Editor exclusive.

 

 


Issue # 12

Does revenue double while costs, headcount, and operational complexity rise with it? Or does the business actually get better as it gets bigger, more data to work with, more automation, better risk decisions, lower unit costs, and deeper customer integration?

I think that’s becoming a more useful way to think about fintech moats. I’m now looking for defensibility in operating leverage: the ability to grow more customers, transactions, and complexity without absorbing the same amount of cost.

This story lives in reconciliation, fraud controls, underwriting, routing, settlement, data infrastructure, and the workflows nobody puts on a product launch page. The new fintech moat is “boring,” and boring is what actually makes it durable. Let’s unpack how.

The numbers are telling us the same

The industry’s financial performance is increasingly rewarding operating leverage alongside growth. BCG and QED Investors’ 2026 fintech research found that global fintech revenue reached $504 billion in 2025, growing 22%, while 74% of the largest public fintechs were profitable and average EBITDA margins rose 400 basis points to 20%. The industry is moving toward profitable scale, with technology increasingly being judged by the economics it creates rather than simply the growth it enables.

So, what happens to your economics when you grow?

Adyen offers a good example. In 2025, its processed volume grew 21%, excluding a large-volume customer, while net revenue grew 18% and operating expenses rose just 13%. EBITDA increased 26%, pushing its margin to 53% from 50% a year earlier. Adyen attributed the expansion to the scalability of its single platform and the operating leverage it creates as the business grows.

If a fintech adds customers and volume but has to add people, systems, and operating expense at roughly the same pace, scale doesn’t create much of a moat. On the other hand, if more volume makes the data better, automation more effective, and unit economics stronger, scale starts to compound. 


Have we mistaken ChatGPT-like LLMs and AI agents for the whole transformation?


The ‘Letter from the Editor’ series features exclusive insight and opinion-driven analysis from Tearsheet editor Sara Khairi. The focus is on linking ideas, questioning assumptions, and tracking shifts across both mature and emerging trends in financial services.

This is now PRO-only content. Subscribe to PRO so you never miss a Letter from the Editor exclusive.

 

 


Issue # 11

Financial services is an industry built around knowledge, language, and decision-making. If any industry was ready for AI and generative AI, surely it was banking. So, companies moved quickly. They announced partnerships with OpenAI. They rolled out ChatGPT Enterprise. They built ChatGPT-like AI assistants. And gave employees access to large language models.

But two years into this experiment, the industry is now asking: What needs to be in place around AI before we can actually trust it?

The beginning of it all: The ChatGPT timeline

2023: “We have ChatGPT”

In 2023, the focus was access. Financial institutions rushed to experiment with the tech after ChatGPT demonstrated something that felt almost impossible at the time: a machine capable of understanding and generating human-like language.

The first wave was about discovery. The excitement was understandable, but it also created unrealistic expectations. Because the assumption was that if AI could understand language, it could eventually understand finance, which isn’t exactly true.

2024: “We have AI copilots”

In 2024, the industry’s language started changing. The idea of AI replacing workers became less prominent. The idea of AI assisting workers became more realistic.

Morgan Stanley’s OpenAI partnership became one of the most visible examples. The firm integrated GPT-4 into tools designed to help financial advisors search through its research and access information more efficiently.

The interesting part was what the model was not asked to do. It was not managing client relationships. It was not making investment decisions. It was not replacing financial judgment. It was just helping advisors spend less time searching and more time advising. The technology became valuable when it supported expertise, not when it attempted to replace it.

Around the same time, banks and fintechs across the industry began launching their own ChatGPT-like assistants, copilots, and enterprise LLM deployments, first for employees, then for customers, to search information, draft content, answer questions, and streamline everyday work.

Again, the biggest opportunity was removing friction from everyday work. Finding information, drafting documents, helping employees move faster. In general, the most successful AI implementations were asking LLMs to make the bank work better.

2025/2026: “We need governance, data and ROI”

By late 2025 and into 2026, the conversation had shifted again. Institutions began building AI agents designed to execute specific financial tasks like underwriting, compliance, servicing, and other financial workflows on top of proprietary data.

As the AI novelty disappeared, the industry then moved from experimentation to accountability. Investors became less interested in hearing that companies had AI initiatives; they wanted evidence around productivity gains and revenue opportunities.

Those points exposed a reality that was easy to overlook during the excitement. The model was never the hardest part.