Paymentus (US: PAY) CEO Dushyant Sharma on how his firm is modernizing enterprise bill payments with a single code

    Discover how Paymentus uses AI to navigate industry-specific bill payment demands and compliance


    For large enterprises, transitioning to cloud-based bill payment systems is no longer just an upgrade — it’s becoming a necessity. Legacy payment infrastructures are often patched together with outdated systems. These systems face challenges with:

    • Meeting the growing demand for real-time payments.
    • Adopting AI-driven automation.
    • Ensuring consistent interoperability across fragmented financial networks.

    Paymentus, a publicly traded company with the stock ticker PAY, is tackling these challenges head-on. It provides cloud-native bill payment solutions tailored to enterprises across various industries. 

    Paymentus caters to large enterprises across industries such as utilities, government, finance, healthcare, insurance, and retail. With a focus on high-volume bill payments, the platform is designed to support organizations that handle large transaction volumes and require scalable, automated solutions. The firm also extends its services to mid-sized businesses seeking to upgrade their payment infrastructures.

    Helping enterprises transition to and scale cloud-based bill payment systems while handling high-volume and sensitive transactions presents its own set of challenges.

    I spoke with Paymentus CEO Dushyant Sharma about how his company uses AI to meet industry-specific demands and regulatory standards, the hurdles businesses face when adopting cloud-based solutions, and Paymentus’ plans for ongoing tech refinement.

    Dushyant Sharma, CEO of Paymentus

    Q: What bill payment challenges does Paymentus solve for large enterprises that traditional systems can’t?


    subscription wall for TS Pro

    Banks tackle the growing issue of investment banking burnout — But is it actually working?

      More doing, less debating


      In the high-stakes world of finance, where metrics move and profits respond, it’s easy to forget that behind every ledger lies a legion of employees. 

      The financial sector isn’t exactly renowned for its leisurely pace. Historically, junior investment banking jobs have been synonymous with grueling hours, often eclipsing the 100-hour mark in a week, worn like badges of honor. This relentless grind, while lucrative, is a double-edged sword, leading to employee burnout, attrition, and the occasional existential crisis. 

      In May of last year, advocates loudly criticized the fact that a frazzled employee is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. The uproar stemmed from the tragic death of Bank of America associate Leo Lukenas, highlighting the need for urgent change. In response, legacy institutions began adopting measures like limiting weekly hours and assigning senior bankers to oversee the well-being of junior staff.

      While we frequently criticize rigid policies, it’s equally important to acknowledge baby steps some legacy banks are taking to improve employee well-being. Whether these measures are sufficient is another question.

      We dive into the steps banks have taken to improve work-life balance for employees following the infamous Bofa employee incident, assess whether these initiatives are effective, and where more can be done, all served with a bit of wit and a dash of insight.

      ​Bank of America implements measures to address junior banker burnout

      Bank of America had some measures in place to address employee mental health and prevent overwork when the Lukenas incident happened.

      Post-incident, the bank has implemented additional measures:


      subscription wall for TS Pro

      BNPL players turn up the heat: Affirm and Klarna compete for banks, growth, and market leadership

        Where does BNPL belong in the bigger financial picture?


        The buy now, pay later (BNPL) race has shifted into a new phase. BNPL providers, Affirm and Klarna, initially grew by integrating into e-commerce checkouts, and are now contending for partnerships with major banks. This is also a sign that financial institutions are warming up to the idea of installment-based lending. 

        Both firms are making big moves to solidify their positions, but their distinct approaches, business models, and competitive strategies bring them advantages, combined with challenges. With Klarna moving toward a public debut and Affirm strengthening its alliances, the two are in the game not just for consumers but also for the financial ecosystem players themselves.

        A new seeding ground: Big bank partnerships

        For years, traditional banks dismissed BNPL as an unsustainable lending model, prone to high default rates and regulatory scrutiny. That stance is shifting. With consumer adoption of BNPL surging, major banks are rethinking their position – they are not just tolerating BNPL now but actively making moves to integrate it into their ecosystems. 

        Affirm’s recent partnership with J.P. Morgan Payments last month is a clear signal that BNPL is no longer just another alternative lending model — it’s mature enough to become embedded within traditional banking. Through this deal, merchants using J.P. Morgan’s Commerce Platform can now offer Affirm’s BNPL loans at checkout, integrating short-term financing directly into the bank’s payment ecosystem. This collaboration puts Affirm in front of a massive merchant base of one of the world’s largest banking networks, solidifying its position as a key BNPL provider in North America.

        In February, J.P. Morgan also teamed up with Klarna to roll out a B2B BNPL offering, bringing installment payment options to its business customers. Through this partnership, companies using J.P. Morgan Chase’s payments commerce platform will be able to split payments over time, later this year, marking a significant step in BNPL’s expansion beyond consumer retail.

        How Affirm and Klarna compare — and where they differ


        subscription wall for TS Pro

        A quarter into 2025, where are Goldman and Apple steering their strategies next?

          Checking In: Where do Goldman Sachs and Apple stand in their individual endeavors?


          Today, I’d like to talk about two partners of a formidable alliance that set out to reshape partnerships in financial services. One brought technological prowess, the other financial muscle — but their grand collaboration didn’t unfold as expected. If you’ve connected the dots, yes, I’m talking about Apple and Goldman Sachs. 

          Today, though, Goldman is back doing what it does best, investment banking and trading, while pushing forward to deepen its AI-related experiments across the business. And Apple is recalibrating its tech and financial services strategy.

          We look at what’s been unfolding at both firms since the start of the year. But first, we check in on the current status of the Goldman-Apple partnership.

          The Goldman-Apple credit card business

          Apple’s high-profile partnership with Goldman Sachs, which began in 2019, soured quickly. 

          The collaboration at first seemed like a strategic masterstroke — Apple sought a gateway into the financial world, while Goldman was set on overhauling its business around new, modern consumer offerings. But like many business alliances, differing priorities and operational realities led to a quiet unraveling.

          The Apple Card, a sleek, consumer-friendly alternative to traditional credit cards, turned into a liability. While uptake of the card was quick, the business model never made sense for GS, which was saddled with all the responsibility for a weird lending portfolio that was rapidly deteriorating. And unlike the old adage, Goldman couldn’t make up for it on volume. Come 2024, Goldman, bleeding money from its consumer banking foray, was eager to offload the Apple Card portfolio. Regulatory scrutiny added further woes, as Apple and Goldman were fined millions for mishandling credit disputes. What once looked like a one-of-a-kind move forward in consumer finance started to resemble a costly miscalculation.

          Several financial firms are now competing to take over Goldman’s role in Apple’s credit card partnership. Reports surfaced that Apple was in talks with J.P. Morgan Chase and now Barclays and Synchrony to take over the program. While lenders see potential in working with Apple, many are wary of the original deal’s risks and profitability challenges.

          Although Goldman’s credit card agreement with Apple runs until 2030, CEO David Solomon indicated in this year’s January earnings call that the partnership could end sooner.

          Inside Goldman Sachs, a quarter into 2025

          Checking in on Goldman’s trajectory since the beginning of 2025:

          1. Goldman’s new Capital Solutions Group to grow its private credit business


          subscription wall for TS Pro

          With the CFPB muzzled, what’s stopping FIs and fintechs from playing dirty?

            The calm before the storm: the financial industry with and without the CFPB


            The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act, has tried to be a sentinel for American consumers, shielding them from predatory financial practices. But ever since Trump set foot back into the Oval Office, the CFPB has barely had a moment to catch its breath.

            That’s exactly what we’re diving into today — how the CFPB’s shake-up is raising big questions about its future and rewriting the rules for banks, fintechs, and the industry at large.

            A timeline of the crackdown

            The CFPB’s inception was a direct response to the 2008 financial crisis, aiming to prevent a recurrence by enforcing stringent regulations on financial entities. Over the years, it secured $20 billion+ in financial relief for consumers, targeting unfair practices by banks, mortgage providers, and credit card companies. 

            What began as a strong year for the bureau quickly took a turn as the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda started reshaping its path. On February 1, 2025, President Trump dismissed CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. ​Following his dismissal, President Trump appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as the acting director on February 3, 2025. Subsequently, Russell Vought, former budget chief under President Trump, assumed the role of acting director at the CFPB on February 7 after his confirmation as head of the Office of Management and Budget. 

            From there, the new administration took decisive steps to curtail the CFPB’s operations.

            Russell Vought — the newly appointed acting director and a key architect of Project 2025, a blueprint advocating for the agency’s dissolution — issued directives to halt ongoing investigations and suspend the implementation of finalized rules. This move effectively paused the agency’s enforcement actions, leaving numerous cases in limbo.

            The CFPB withdrew several high-profile lawsuits, including those against major financial institutions like J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These cases, which addressed issues such as the handling of the payments platform Zelle, were dismissed without digging deeper, preventing future refiling.

            The administration’s actions align with a broader agenda to reduce government oversight and promote industry self-regulation. 

            Pop the champagne or call the lawyers? The industry’s split reaction

            Graphic credit: Tearsheet

            The financial industry’s relationship with the CFPB has been contentious. Some firms viewed the bureau as overreaching, often chafing under its str


            subscription wall for TS Pro

            Are banks and fintechs stablecoin skeptics or undercover believers?

              Stablecoins: The Trojan horse sneaking into traditional finance?


              Bitcoin’s been flexing, the government’s nodding, and stablecoins are making new friends.

              Pegged to the US dollar or other assets, stablecoins have evolved from a niche crypto experiment into a $221 billion plus market capitalization (of the top 10 stablecoins) and financial firms are definitely paying attention.

              Fintechs and financial institutions are moving to position themselves in this growing market. The question is: How can stablecoins impact the future of money, and what challenges lie ahead?

              Financial firms’ growing bet on stablecoins

              Stablecoins now represent a fundamental shift in how money moves. Their real-world use cases range from international remittances to corporate treasury management, enabling faster and cheaper transactions than traditional banking systems. Stripe has recently called them the “room-temperature superconductors for financial services,” a fancy way of saying they make payments shockingly efficient without melting down the system.

              The riseStablecoin use cases have been fueled by inefficiencies in the traditional banking sector and sticky inflation. Cross-border payments, for instance, remain slow and expensive due to intermediaries and outdated infrastructure. Stablecoins are also increasingly being used as a hedge against currency instability in emerging markets.

              The gray area: Despite their potential, stablecoins exist in a regulatory gray area — a place where innovation can either thrive or be buried under paperwork.

              Stablecoin regulation remains a patchwork of evolving policies. US lawmakers are now focusing on creating clearer, more comprehensive legislation. Proposals like the GENIUS Act and the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act are looking to define a legal structure for issuing and using stablecoins.

              Meanwhile, financial institutions that have already introduced their own stablecoins — or fintechs facilitating stablecoin transactions — operate within specific legal frameworks:

              • JPM Coin, launched in 2019, operates within J.P. Morgan’s private, permissioned blockchain network. It is used only for institutional clients, keeping it within regulatory boundaries.
              • PayPal’s PYUSD, launched in 2023, was issued through Paxos, a regulated entity with approvals from the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS). This allowed PayPal to offer PYUSD while complying with state-level regulations. By year-end, PayPal plans to make PYUSD available as a payment option for its 20 million+ SMB merchants, enabling them to pay vendors through its upcoming bill-pay service.
              • Stripe doesn’t issue its own stablecoin but facilitates payments and integrations using existing ones, such as USDC, avoiding direct issuance risks. Meanwhile, Revolut reportedly entered stablecoin development last year, while Visa rolled out a platform to help FIs issue stablecoins.

              More FIs are making moves: Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan shared this month that his bank is prepared to enter the stablecoin business — once US lawmakers permit regulatory approval. 

              This cautious approach reflects broader concerns within traditional finance about compliance, risk management, and integration into existing financial systems. Banks face strict capital requirements and regulatory scrutiny, making their entry into the stablecoin market more complex. So, banks want in, but only when they won’t get a legal migraine for it.

              If banks receive a green light, stablecoins could compete with money market funds, transforming payments and liquidity management. But if regulations become too tight, the momentum could shift to friendlier jurisdictions, leaving US banks looking on like someone who showed up after the game started.

              How FIs and fintechs differ in their approach to stablecoins

              Graphic credit: Tearsheet

              Fintechs — and now banks — are moving more deeply into stablecoins, but their playbooks differ based on their respective strengths and constraints.


              subscription wall for TS Pro

              How banks can stay relevant, not relics: Lessons from BNY & Citi

                Old Guard, New Rules: Who’s keeping up?


                Big banks are playing offense. Fintech competition, tech leaps, and workforce expectations are evolving — so should banks.

                Traditional banks are already trying on a modern fit — experimenting with tech, balancing brick-and-click, rethinking talent, and making new power couple moves in partnerships.

                Two prime examples stood out last week: BNY takes the artificial intelligence route to improve its operations, and Citi continues to use workplace flexibility to navigate talent challenges. While these paths differ, they reflect a shared realization — adapt or risk becoming a museum exhibit.

                Graphic credits: Tearsheet

                BNY: Merging centuries of banking with AI innovation

                Established in 1784, BNY is America’s oldest bank, which has thrived for over two centuries. Yet, instead of clinging to its storied past, the institution is looking forward, betting big on AI as the key to its future.

                In a landmark deal, BNY has entered into a multiyear relationship with OpenAI, a decision that signals more than just technological adoption — it’s an illustration that even the most traditional players should innovate or risk being upstaged by a 25-year-old coder in a hoodie.

                The cornerstone of this AI-driven transformation is Eliza, BNY’s proprietary AI platform, launched in 2024. Initially conceived as an internal chatbot trained on the bank’s vast institutional knowledge, Eliza has evolved into a multifaceted AI tool that empowers employees to build AI-powered applications. More than 50% of the bank’s 52,000 employees actively engage with Eliza, using it for tasks ranging from lead generation to workflow optimization. By integrating OpenAI’s most advanced models launched this year, BNY is supercharging Eliza with next-gen capabilities. These include Deep Research, which can analyze vast amounts of online information to complete multistep research tasks, and Operator, an AI agent capable of browsing the web like a human.

                But why is BNY Mellon making this move now? Necessity. Competition. Strategic vision.

                • Necessity: AI adoption in banking is no longer optional. From compliance to risk management, the financial sector deals with high complexity. AI offers solutions to streamline operations, reduce inefficiencies, and facilitate decision-making. 
                • Competition: Fintech startups and tech giants like Google and Apple are poised to take over market share if they fall too far behind. To hold its ground, BNY likely needs a tech upgrade to offer more AI-driven services.
                • Strategic positioning: With banks emerging as some of the most active adopters of AI, BNY doesn’t want to be a bystander. Partnering with OpenAI gives it access to the latest underlying tech, positioning it as a strong player in the industry.

                However, this transformation is not without its challenges. Integrating advanced AI framework into a 240-year-old institution is like teaching your grandparents to use TikTok. Ensuring compliance with strict regulatory standards, managing the ethical implications of AI-driven decision-making, and upskilling employees to work effectively alongside AI are all significant hurdles. Moreover, cybersecurity remains a major concern — handling sensitive financial data requires strong protective measures to prevent breaches.

                Despite these challenges, BNY is forging ahead, not just out of necessity but out of the foresightedness that AI may likely be a big part of the future of banking. This puts other well-equipped banks on the spot — if the oldest bank in America can adapt, what excuse do the rest have?

                Citigroup’s Hybrid Bet: Why sticking to flexibility might just be its smartest move yet


                subscription wall for TS Pro

                Klarna and Chime eye IPOs in 2025 — But will the market play nice?

                  Can fintech’s brightest stars shine on Wall Street?


                  Klarna and Chime are finally ready to test the public markets, likely this year. The Swedish buy now, pay later (BNPL) firm and the US neobank have reportedly confidentially filed in late 2024 for IPOs, marking two of the most anticipated fintech public debuts in recent years.

                  But with shifting market conditions, a new administration in the White House, and a mix of investor excitement and skepticism, these IPOs could either be fintech’s grand return to Wall Street — or another cautionary tale.

                  The possibility of an IPO for Revolut and Stripe has also been brewing since 2023, but neither company is ready to seal the deal just yet.

                  The case for going public

                  For Klarna and Chime, the timing makes sense — at least on paper. Markets have started 2025 with a bullish streak, fueled by cooling inflation, a rebounding IPO pipeline, and a government that appears friendlier to fintech innovation. However, alongside that enthusiasm come fiercer competition and sharper investor scrutiny.

                  After a turbulent couple of years, Klarna has been eyeing a public listing. Its valuation plummeted from a $46 billion peak in 2021 to around $6.7 billion in 2022 before rebounding to an estimated $15 billion. Going public could help Klarna raise fresh capital, expand further into the US, and compete more strongly with rivals like Affirm and Apple’s Pay Later service.

                  As for Chime, with over 20 million customers, it is one of the biggest digital banking players in the US. However, it hasn’t raised funds since 2021, when it was valued at around $25 billion. A public listing could provide it with capital to fuel growth and potentially diversify beyond its core product offerings, which include a fee-free digital banking experience. 

                  The aspirations and tactical execution

                  The post-pandemic era has turned IPOs into a proving ground rather than a victory lap. Companies can no longer bank on hype alone — they need solid profitability, sustainable growth, and a narrative that withstands intense scrutiny. The Federal Reserve’s tighter monetary policies, global market volatility, and the shift from a liquidity-driven to a fundamentals-driven investment climate are creating higher entry barriers.

                  Both Klarna and Chime will be entering a relatively less forgiving market and heightened investor concern than in 2021, a year that saw 61 fintech IPOs — far more than the 16 that have launched in the past three years combined.


                  subscription wall for TS Pro

                  “We want this to be a long term relationship, minimum 5-10 years”: Citi’s Chafic Haddad on how the bank chooses fintech clients and builds evolving partnerships

                  Choosing the right bank to work with is a skill that fintechs need to develop and nurture. When the right choices are made, fintechs can find themselves working with banks that not only provide a strong compliance and banking layer but also have opportunities for the fintech to plug into the bank’s infrastructure and become more than just a client. 

                  This evolving landscape is what Citi’s Global Head of Fintech Sales, Chafic Haddad, provided insight on when I spoke to him. He dove into the maturity cycle that fintechs go through by starting from offering basic products like accounts and then eventually growing enough to explore capital markets and investment banking. He also described how Citi helps these fintechs spread their wings beyond their local markets.

                  Listen to today’s conversation to learn from Haddad’s experience about how the bank helps fintechs grow sustainably and eventually spread their wings beyond their local geographies and the way Citi organizes and manages these relationships.

                  Big ideas

                  Chafic’s role: My team’s job is to provide or connect fintechs with what we do within the transaction bank. We’re the business that manages the overall relationship across all Citi products. We have a two fold structure: you’ve got the commercial bank, which would typically look after small to medium sized fintechs, and then the more mature unicorn type fintech would sit within our banking organization.

                  How Citi chooses which fintechs to work with: We consider a range of factors including growth potential. We have finite resources. We can’t take on everybody and it’s a space that continues to grow and evolve. Growth is key, because we want to be working with entities that have ambitions. Given our network, we’d like to be partnering with fintechs that want to grow beyond their home market.

                  How Citi’s fintech relationships begin: We want this to be a long term relationship, at a minimum of 5-10 years or even longer. Initially, the entry point is the business that I represent, which is the transaction banking business, or the Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) because that is the go to area for any fintech on day one. They want accounts, access to payment schemes, and treasury management.

                  How Citi collaborates with fintech clients: They [fintech CEOs] have a vested interest in being part of the strategic discussion to work with Citi. This is ultimately their business and their name on the door. Those conversations take place at multiple levels, often starting at the top of the house, and then once we focus or zoom in.

                  Evolving relationships:
                  Many start off as clients and we collaborate and co-create. But in several cases, they actually come into our ecosystem as providers of service and become clients over time.

                  Listen to the podcast

                  Subscribe: Apple Podcasts I SoundCloud I Spotify

                  The full transcript

                  Building on legacy

                  Whether you play in the merchant acquiring space as a fintech, or you offer domestic cross border solutions or drive FX (foreign exchange) platforms, you need a provider that can give you access to payment channels and schemes, support you with operating accounts, help you manage liquidity, and help you manage and safeguard client monies. And to do all of that while guiding you through the regulatory environment. 

                  So I would say those are the two or three things that stand out for me in terms of what a fintech really needs from a provider or a banking institution. As a 200 year plus financial institution with international branches in over 90 countries, we believe that we are well-placed to support fintechs, whether they are domestically focused or looking to offer their solutions globally. We’re leveraging our long history as a provider of financial services as well as our global presence to roll out solutions to prioritize a digital, 24/7 approach to payments; advancing the client experience and ensuring liquidity for our clients around the clock.

                  Our network is unique. We have the largest network today compared to other large multinational banks, and that is something that really appeals to our clients, because it underlines our commitment to the international arena. 

                  When you deal with Citi, you’re effectively dealing with the institution that’s plugging you into one platform. The model is similar wherever you do business in New York, London, Tokyo or Sydney. The products and solutions are more or less the same.

                  I say ‘more or less’ because there are some differences that are driven by local regulation, but effectively, we can be your one stop shop. As far as a global strategy is concerned, we talked about how Citi supports fintechs around the world, but there is also collaboration or co-creation that Citi has entered into with a number of fintechs to come up with solutions that are now offered as mainstream. 

                  One example of that is our Pay-to-China offering. If you think about Chinese merchants that are selling online overseas, one of their challenges is collecting funds. So the Pay-to-China offering at Citi enables offshore payment intermediaries to pay directly into their merchant’s local currency bank accounts in China for goods that have been sold online or overseas through e-commerce platforms. It’s a solution that leverages our FX capabilities and access to domestic payment schemes in China to provide a seamless cross border payment experience. 

                  Another example is our Spring by Citi® offering, which is our acquiring engine and digital payment acceptance solution. It’s also an example of how we’re collaborating and co-creating with ecosystem fintech partners to roll out this offering in multiple markets.

                  One more example is Citi® Payments Express, which is our 24/7 cloud-enabled digital commerce solution. It’s a solution that facilitates multi-domestic and real time liquidity and gives us the opportunity to scale to 100 times the volume while operating at much lower costs. We’re looking to roll out Express in the top global markets in the next few years.

                  Fintech priorities: Growing beyond local borders

                  Fintech entities that we’ve been in business with for a number of years are now looking to grow, – if they haven’t already done so – beyond their home market. That is typically driven by both a need to support existing customers who are doing business in multiple markets, as well as opportunities to acquire new ones. 

                  The other interesting dynamic is that many set out to offer a single product. We will be your FX partner and we will help you acquire if you’re selling in marketplaces. Now we’re seeing those same entities develop and sell more than one solution. In order for them to expand their product offering, some have even gone as far as acquiring banking licenses, and that has allowed them to get into the deposit-taking space and lending space, as well as do other regulatory-focused products.

                  On working with Citi 

                  So one thing that we’re very keen on is we don’t simply want to be a provider of service. That is something that typically kickstarts the relationship. But over time, we want to co-create with the fintech clients that we do business with. That means we sit together, understand what their strategic objectives are, how they envision their strategy to be over the next three to five years, and then work with them in building the products and solutions to get them there. 

                  We typically connect at various levels of the organization. Unlike some other sectors, you’ll find that in the fintech space, a lot of the CEOs are owners and operators. They have a vested interest in being part of the strategic discussion. This is ultimately their business and their name on the door. Those conversations take place at multiple levels, often starting at the top of the house, and then once we focus or zoom in on an idea or an innovative solution, that gets focused with the people at various levels.

                  What’s interesting about our relationships with fintechs is they’re quite dynamic. Many start off as clients and we collaborate and co-create. But in several cases, they actually come into our ecosystem as providers of service and become clients over time. It’s a dynamic space. There are opportunities for us to plug into one another’s capabilities. 

                  One example of that is we have a cross currency crossborder platform called Worldlink. Even though we are present in over 90 countries, there are some markets where we are not physically on the ground for one reason or another. So in those instances, we need to find a partner that we can connect with and collaborate with to help us deliver our service on the ground – and those are the kinds of collaborations that take place with some of the fintech clients.

                  We’re quite deliberate about the fintechs we choose to take on as clients. We consider a range of factors including growth potential. We have finite resources, as you can appreciate. We can’t take on everybody and it’s a space that continues to grow and evolve. Growth is key, because we want to be working with entities that have ambitions. Given our network, we’d like to be partnering with fintechs that want to grow beyond their home market, as I mentioned earlier, and actually have longer term objectives. For us, these relationships are difficult to establish. The onboarding process is rigorous. It requires quite a lot of heavy lifting. 

                  So once we get over that, we want this to be a long term relationship, at a minimum 5-10 years or even longer. Initially, the entry point is the business that I represent, which is the transaction banking business, or the Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) because that is the go to area for any fintech on day one: we want accounts, we want access to payment schemes, and we want treasury management. 

                  We want help collecting once we plug them into these solutions and we then evolve the conversation into other areas, whether it’s around capital markets or broader investment banking or working capital.

                  Citi’s evolution to work with fintechs

                  The capabilities within our network continue to evolve, as we roll out new solutions, and we’re doing that all the time. The ultimate aim is to be able to do that across the network to give you that seamless experience wherever you’re doing business with Citi. That is something that continues to be at the heart of everything that we do. Given the geographic reach that we have, we have expertise at the ground level to guide our fintech clients through the regulatory challenges, local laws, regulations, what to expect and how to go about licensing. That puts us in a unique position. We also have an experienced and dedicated fintech sales team – my role, and that of my teams, is focused exclusively on the fintech segment. 

                  We don’t talk to anybody else from a client segmentation perspective, unless they fall into our fintech definition. Hence, you’ve got that expertise on the team, that network that allows you to operate globally, and you’ve got the local expertise on the ground. I’d also add that over time, we’ve become a trusted advisor to our clients, so our deep rooted industry expertise enables us to guide our fintech clients as they seek new opportunities, new customer segments and look to grow.

                  Navigating timezones as a professional

                  Geography does not matter much when you’re in a global role, because I’m constantly on the road. From a timezone perspective, it works for me, because it gives me a good half day with Asia in the morning, and then as the day goes on, Europe and the UK come online. And then my afternoons and evenings are with the U.S.. So it works from that perspective. 

                  The way we’re organized is that I have regionals, and they’re located in New York, Miami – which is our Latin Hub – Hong Kong, and Dublin, which is our service European hub. They have individuals that report to their own teams and all of that is part of a wider team which supports our fintech clients and goes out and positions what we do best at Citi to those clients.

                  Citi’s organizational structure

                  I sit within the product organization. We also have side by side coverage organizations – what we at Citi call corporate banking – as well as our commercial bank. Commercial banking tends to be the entry point for a relatively new-to-market fintech: these are firms that have been operating for a couple of years, they’re low turnover, but have a good runway ahead of them.

                  My team’s job is to provide or connect fintechs with what we do within the transaction bank –the business that manages the overall relationship across all products. Citi also hast the commercial bank, which would typically look after small to medium sized fintechs, and then the more mature unicorn type fintech would sit within our banking organization.

                  I typically would service the fintechs that are more complex and have had several years of history under their belt, that are now at a stage where they have either expanded internationally or are continuing to expand internationally. That’s not to suggest that we don’t connect with our partners on the commercial bank, because what they’re looking after are fintechs at an early stage. But that early stage quickly becomes a later stage, and then there are opportunities for my team to plug into their strategy and provide them with the solutions they’re looking for to continue their growth. 

                  Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the individual, unless reflected in Citi’s Research Reports, are those of the speaker and may not necessarily reflect the views of Citi or any of its affiliates.  All opinions are made at the time of the recording and are subject to change without notice. The expressions of opinion are not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results.

                  Cupid’s Got a Ledger: Romance and rivalry in finance

                    A Valentine’s Month take on banks and fintechs


                    Last week, I teased a mystery topic, letting you stew in curiosity about what was coming. Well, the wait is over! Given that Valentine’s Day was just last Friday, I’m leaning toward a theme that fits the season: unions & collaborations.

                    We often dive into stories of partnerships that start with fireworks and flawless roadmaps — only to crash and burn for one reason or another. But today, let’s moonwalk through this. Let’s talk about rivals who went from side-eyeing each other to shaking hands (at least in the business world).

                    Take banks and fintechs, for example. Their early days were more ‘battle for dominance’ than ‘let’s work together’ — fintechs painted themselves as challengers, while banks saw them as pesky invaders. But time and market realities have a way of reshaping narratives.

                    Now, banks and fintechs are increasingly recognizing their strengths. It’s a classic ‘you complete me’ scenario — if corporate romance were a thing.

                    Graphic credits: Tearsheet

                    But let’s hit rewind for a moment. How did these once-feuding forces go from wary opponents to strategic allies? And where do these kinds of relationships stand now?

                    Let’s dig in.

                    Block vs. J.P. Morgan Chase: From competition to cooperation

                    J.P. Morgan Chase initially saw Square (now Block) as a major small-business payment competitor. In 2014, CEO Jamie Dimon famously warned that Silicon Valley was “coming to eat our lunch.” Square’s success with small business payments and its Cash App product placed it in direct competition with Chase’s merchant services.


                    subscription wall for TS Pro