Search results

In cooperation with a German online retail bank, the aim of this paper is to investigate how the bank should price a new fee-only financial advisory service. Two types of pricing plans differ in terms of their strategies for determining monthly prices: a fixed monthly price that is identical for all clients (i.e. a flat pricing plan) or a monthly price that varies as a function of each client's assets under management (i.e. a volume pricing plan).

With a discrete choice experiment, this article studies client preferences for the two types of plans. To ensure that the respondents understood the financial consequences of their decisions, a price calculator was embedded into the discrete choice experiment to enable the respondents to determine their individual monthly prices based on their assets under management.

Methodologically, the price calculator is useful for simplifying mathematically complex decisions, and it provides additional valuable information for analysis. Substantively, the results show that clients perceive both types of pricing plans as equally attractive; however, the service provider's revenues would increase by up to 12 per cent if it uses the volume pricing plan.

This research extends the stream of literature on the measurement of pricing plan preferences and offers guidance for service industries, such as telecommunications, cloud computing services, insurances, or transportation. It extends the use of discrete choice experiments to study client preferences for different pricing plans and also integrates a decision aid, i.e. a price calculator, in the experiment to assist clients in comparing alternatives more effectively.

In the mid-1990s, market demands for around-the-clock (24/7) banking and financial transacting began to converge with advances in internet-based technologies. This confluence of forces gave rise to the birth of internet banking. Building upon the relevant literature, this paper aims to develop a set of propositions to address the following questions: what brand strategy or strategies were used at the birth of internet banking roughly 25 years ago? In the years since then, have merger and acquisition transactions involving internet or “direct” banking businesses only come to fruition where the direct bank was previously under a specific brand strategy? And finally, where there have been changes in internet banking brand strategy, have these invariably been in the ultimate direction of one particular brand strategy?

Because of the exploratory nature of the research question, this paper uses a case study examination as the research approach. In addition to gaining deeper insight into issues involving internet bank branding as these actually existed, this paper aims to propose preliminary and tentative conclusions that can later be tested empirically with larger sample size. The case studies specifically examine German commercial banks with direct bank businesses.

In the examination of the German commercial banks, this paper finds that their internet banking activities some 25 years ago were, in fact, never launched using an umbrella brand strategy but rather with a combined brand strategy or multi-brand strategy. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions involving internet-based direct banks were only consummated where the direct bank had previously been operated by the parent bank using a multi-brand strategy. Where the brand strategies of internet-based direct banks have been changed by their parent banks, this has invariably been in the direction of an umbrella brand strategy.

Within the marketing and banking literature, there are no in-depth examinations of internet banking brand strategies to be found. This paper, in addressing this research topic, marks the first full survey of German commercial banks with internet-based direct banking businesses. This survey, moreover, examines branding not only at the time that internet-based direct banks were first established starting in 1994 but also the subsequent development of internet banking brand strategies to the present day.

This paper aims to focus on the banking industry and its hackathon formats, which have been created by various banking groups. Other industries can learn from these findings and adopt best practice solutions.

A multi-case study was conducted with three hackathon formats (Collabothon, GENOhackathon and Symbioticon) from the banking sector in which qualitative interviews with members of the organization team were held and used to summarize the differences and similarities of hackathon formats in the banking industry.

A model was developed to demonstrate how the different hackathon formats in banking overlap and what differences exist.

This study used a cross-case analysis to summarize differences and similarities of hackathon formats in the banking industry in Germany.

Business Model Analysis is acquiring increasing visibility in the European banking regulatory framework, following the European Banking Authority guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP), developed to assess business and strategic risks (EBA, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Starting from a selected literature review, in the paper, the authors analyse business models set up by financial intermediaries, bank and non-banks, for the distribution of investment services, first by comparing European niche players with European banking global players, and second, comparing European niche players among themselves to understand the evolution of business models for the distribution of investment services at European level. The research is supported by the Baffi–Carefin Research Centre at the Bocconi University (Italy), in collaboration with ANASF, the Italian Association of Financial Advisors (Italy).

The authors consider a sample of European financial players from 2009 to 2014. The authors’ focus is on France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK; overall the authors’ handmade data set is based on 162 annual reports. The authors follow two main questions: Do the niche players, as they are focused on the distribution of investment services, have an upper limit to profitability, compared to the global players, as risk-takers in many financial areas? How is the business model of niche players changing, facing increasing competition and regulatory pressures?

Answering the first research question, the highest net profitability is found in the niche players group; the global players, as risk-takers, achieve lower remuneration, in contrast with the risk premium theory. The results were assessed over a limited period, however, deemed in line with the company’s strategic planning horizon. Answering the second research question, the authors focus on the case of niche players, using a cluster analysis. The authors identify three different business models: most dynamic niche players, which combine investment services, insurance and welfare services, achieving the highest margins and stability; players mainly focused on asset management, whose key vulnerability is the degree of open architecture, especially in light of future MiFID 2 implementation; and players mainly focused on the creation of well-structured on-line platforms, which offer also brokerage services, thereby reducing their marginality and potentially increasing their business risk.

Despite the limited time series, the authors’ research gives some inputs for those interested in deepening the business model analysis focus on the distribution of investment services and the business and strategic risk assessment, both for the global banks and the niche players (banks and non-banks).

The authors’ results could be of some interest during the strategic assessment of global banks and niche players, both adopting an internal perspective or an external one, as regulator.

By giving some specific insights into the assessment and comparison of business and strategic risks among global and niche players, the authors’ research provides the basis for further research in the field of the distribution of investment services.

The originality mainly regards the business model risk perspective and the focus of the authors’ analysis: the distribution of investment services. This sector, unlike the asset management, does not have an easily recognisable group of comparables at European level, all the European countries analysed have very different business models. This research avails of an original database, that is unique to Europe.

The “New Economy” was the economic buzzword of the 1990s. Digitization and networking, accompanied disproportionally by an increasing efficiency of information and communication technology exchanges, served as the foundation for sustainable economic changes in the way business is conducted (Gersch & Goeke, 2004). The new Internet architecture and the economic transactions that are based on it became of increasing importance worldwide.