The future in our control

Greyscale backing image

 

[Jane Adams] At the recent 6th London BarCampBank Unconference, organised in London by Consult Hyperion, 90 attendees managed to leap the waiting list and attend the sold out event.

Unlike traditional conferences, unconferences focus on generating ideas and knowledge from all attendees. First of all we asked each delegate to write down their interests on post-it notes. We then sorted these into themes and delegates were seated in round table discussions according to theme. The ensuing discussions were both vital and intense and generated a wide range of visions, wishes and inspirations about the future of payments. Here are the main outcomes.

One key theme was the nature of the future bank. Was it a platform? Was it a utility? How did it differ from non-banks and near banks?

While delegates disliked the idea of banking as a utility, there was some interest in the idea of the bank as a trusted service manager, presenting a set of APIs to applications whose quality would need to be rigorously controlled. The real innovation would come in the area of distribution of these services and applications.

There was concern that not everyone understands that what separates banks and non-banks is the taking of deposits. Perhaps the varying terminology doesn’t help – to near-banks and non-banks, attendees added the neologism neo-banks. However despite the industry leading role of many of the attendees, only 50% professed themselves ready to trust new entrants.

Add to that a regulatory regime that seems to benefit incumbents and new entrants might have a problem. Delegates stressed the importance of regulation that benefited customers as well as banks, leading to greater transparency and a pro-innovation mindset.

One area of genuinely contentious discussion was whether in this future scenario, Visa and MasterCard had a role to play. There were few ideas about what would happen to what one delegate claimed was the 3.6 billion accounts that currently carry association branding, nor to how the industry would do without chargeback. However there was some suggestion that the future might reverse a past trend with a return to smaller local brands rather than another global acceptance brand.

One of the biggest questions is what will happen to cash. Dave Birch makes no secret of his views on the burdens cash imposes on the economy but attendees seemed to think that if cash disappeared there would need to be some sort of replacement. Cash was seen as local, convenient, trusted and personal and any replacement would have to have those features too. Anonymity and privacy were also seen as desirable features. A future visioning ‘writers’ discussion’ which I chaired ran with this idea and came to the disappointing conclusion that the replacement for cash was probably cash.

One brighter idea was that there could be different types of money for different purposes, with money shifting away from being something national towards becoming something specific to different types of economy.

Prepaid should be free with the business case coming from added value to both parties, unlike many current prepaid approaches. In fact customers could even receive discounts for using it, with aggregators enabling the customer to compare and choose the best discount.

Delegates were also asked why mobile might be better than cards. Partly this question foundered on definitions but three points to consider in any discussion were defined – the axes of security versus usability and innovation versus regulation and also the question of who holds the power to take mobile forward – merchants, schemes or consumers?

Identity played a large role in the discussion, although there was much disagreement about how banks could be involved. Some felt that banks were uniquely placed to provide data provisioning for identification services but others pointed out that identity on the Internet is multiple and much more subtle than pure KYC based identity. Where ‘what we are’ is more important than ‘who we are’, a link between the two may not be helpful.

In all cases, payment should be under the control of the payer not the payee – my money, my control – with friction being self imposed. That means any viable future alternatives to current payments methods must feature push payments.   

Tomorrow’s Transactions: mobile wallets

Greyscale backing image

[Dave Birch] Looking at the long list of mobile wallets posted by the good people at pvments.com, you can't help but feel that this will be one of the hottest payment topics of 2013 and it's an especially fun topic because no-one really knows how it is going to pan out. There are a great many different opinions coming from all perspectives. For example, Anuj Nayar, PayPal’s senior director, global communications, recently wrote that:

The problem is that mobile wallets don’t solve any customer pain points by themselves. They don’t offer intrinsic advantages over swiping a credit card or heaven forbid, paying cash

[From Mobile Wallets – PayPal Exec: Mobile Wallets Address Non-Existent Problem | PYMNTS.com]

I hope that Anuj won't mind nipping down to the ATM for me next time I'm stuck in a taxi with no cash or popping home to pick up my wallet for me next time I forget it. After all, I'll have my phone with me so I can easily give him a call! But that wasn't what I wanted to focus on. What Anul actually went on to say was

To gain mass adoption it has to be better, not just different,

[From PayPal is not a mobile wallet company]

Indeed. This is what I mean when I talk to clients about "hyper wallets": not an emulation of the wallet in your back pocket but a re-imagnation of what a wallet should be in the always-on, hyper-connected world that RBS talk about in their new report "Four Technology Super Trends and their Impact on Retail Banking". An always-on, hyper-connected wallet should be something fantastic, not just another wrapper around your existing payment cards.

A hyper wallet doesn't try and simulate a physical wallet: it meet the requirements for a wallet in the modern, online world. It doesn't emulate the leather wallet, it blows the leather wallet away.

[From Wallets, mobile wallets and hyper wallets]

Since wallets are such a hot topic, we're going to have an expert panel on the topic at Tomorrow's Transactions, the 16th annual Consult Hyperion Forum, which will be held in London on 13th and 14th March 2013. In case you are wondering: yes, this did used to be called the "Digital Money Forum", but we decided to change the name this year for two reasons:

  1. Technology changes around identity and authentication are as integral to the future of retail transactions as technology changes around payments and the two are inter-related.
  2. It makes sense to bring all of Consult Hyperion's thought leadership activities together under the single "Tomorrow's Transactions" brand. Tomorrow's transactions are where our thought leadership is focused, securing tomorrow's transactions is where our day-to-day work with clients is focused.

The name has changed, but the fun hasn't. The Forum once again promises the combination of discussion and debate, learning and fun, that has earned it the reputation as the place to be for people interested in the future of retail electronic transactions. It continues to be a unique event, where interaction and invention replace product announcements and “death by Powerpoint” sales pitches. This year we are again moving the agenda forwards to look at the leading edge in mobile transactions, Islamic e-finance, cashlessness and financial inclusion, amongst other topics, all in a relaxed environment where experts can explore the boundaries of strategy for banks, mobile operators, retailers, charities and government.

All delegates will receive a complimentary copy of the Tomorrow’s Transactions 2013 "blook" as well as Barrie Cook's "Angels & Ducats: Shakespeare's Money & Medals". The Forum is a not-for-profit event and any surplus generated will go to BUFFER (which provides specialist diagnostic equipment for breast cancer), Jubilee Action and Action Medical Research. The Forum is sponsored by Visa Europe and WorldPay with support from Olswang and ACI Worldwide.

The Forum will be limited a maximum of 100 people as always, and we have confirmed chairs, speakers and panelists from The Economist, University of Bangor, Gates Foundation, Mobile Industry Review, Yandex Money, InsideOps, We've, Visa Europe, Olswang, Validity Inc., MyBank, Droplet, Maris Strategies, British Museum, Department of Work and Pensions, Comic Relief, Toynbee Hall, the Cabinet Office, London Rebuilding Society, Verizon, ACI Worldwide and WorldPay and others. Book yourself a place now.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Ice on the surface in MaRS

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] It was freezing when I left England yesterday and freezing in Toronto when I arrived for the first Digital Money Unconference here. I’m pretty sure it will be freezing in New York when I get there later in the week. Ice everywhere. I’m sure most readers will be familiar with story of the North American ice trade. In the 19th century there was a vigorous export trade, centred on New England, cutting blocks of ice from frozen lakes and sending them, packed in sawdust, in sailing ships, to London, New Orleans, Calcutta and all points in between. Barges loaded with Canadian ice packed in sawdust were taken down to the Caribbean, where entrepreneurs gave out cold beer to build demand for the product.

Untitled

Dave Birch from Consult Hyperion.
Sincere thanks to MaRS for their hosting of the Toronto Digital Money Unconference 

When refrigerators were invented, the ice traders sensed a terrific new business opportunity: now they could make ice all year round instead of having to wait until the winter. So they began to manufacture ice instead of harvesting it from inland waterways. And then they packed it in sawdust and loaded it onto sailing ships.

Meanwhile, other inventors, entrepreneurs and visionaries were sending refrigerators around the globe so that everyone could make their own ice. In a decade, everyone could, and the global ice trade was gone.

This all happened a century before money as we know it today was was born (on 15th August 1971) when Richard Millhouse Nixon ended the external convertibility of the US Dollar into gold. Before that date, old money was linked, however tenuously, to something tangible. Since that date, money has been imaginary. That’s why it’s amusing to hear people talking about “real” money such as Canadian dollars and “virtual” money such as World of Warcraft Gold Pieces. Neither are real.

Now it is in its forties, money is having a bit of a mid-life crisis. It doesn’t know what it’s for any more. Is it to facilitate commerce? Is it to fund government spending? Is it to establish national identity and sovereignty? Is it to control inflation and deliver stability? Perhaps it is trying to be too many things at once, and this is why it is stressed. Perhaps its existential crisis began when it realised that it is imaginary. This must be most unsettling. We tried buying it a sports car, or “quantitative easing” as some people call it. In the UK, the printing presses were running flat out to put more than £200 billion into circulation. (Metaphorically, since only a tiny fraction of Sterling is in the form of cash.) Money should have been happy, but it’s still sulking (inflation is high), and it’s been refusing to come to work (economic growth isn’t).

According to the Bank of England, its policies have, over the last couple of years, transferred tens of billions from the cautious and sensible to the profligate and reckless to no avail. Perhaps it is time to begin a national debate on how money should work. It’s not a law of physics, unchanging and immutable. It’s the product of technology, culture and business: the current institutional arrangements could, and should, be changed so that money serves the community rather than undermining it.

Untitled

Howard Hall from CHYP USA.
We really appreciated the support from the Royal Canadian Mint, Don River and ACT Canada who helped us create a terrific event.

There are a great many candidates for post-fiat currency, the next new money. People have been talking about time dollars in the US, the Lewes Pound in the UK and the WIR in Switzerland as potential successors for years, but there’s a new factor that is re-energising these discussions about community-based currencies. Technology and the financial crisis are like biorhythms in synch at last. Cash is on the way out, and it won’t be replaced by plastic cards or paper vouchers but by mobile phones.

Money will become a menu on the mobile, and the consequences extend far beyond the ease of redeeming fast food coupons or collecting loyalty points in every store. When choosing between Toronto Thalers or Vancouver Values in your local shop is simply a matter of a menu on a mobile phone, your relationship with currency will shift. Instead of being forced to hold depreciating national money, you’ll be able to hold any number of different kinds of money and technology will continue to lessen centralised control, to the point where it vanishes.

Now, when people have talked about “community currencies”, “money with values”, “local exchange” and the like before, they have been talking about physical, geographical communities. Hence when mobile technology arrives, it is used to make, for example, the Brixton e-Pound (launched in London in October 2011) out of the Brixton Pound. But technology has changed the nature of community itself. In a connected world, community no longer means a street or a town or any kind of place at all. It means subgroups in the Net.

It’s reasonably well understood that these subgroups, these online communities, are the power of the web, not the simple connectivity. I have virtually nothing in common with the people in my street, other than the geographic accident of proximity, whereas I belong to a number of virtual communities that are really, really important to me. Checking my Facebook page will always give me more of a thrill than going to the council web site. I used LinkedIn a couple of times yesterday, whereas I used central government web sites a couple of times in the last year (once to file may taxes, once to pay my car tax). I’m addicted to twitter (although I only follow people that I’ve met) feel very strongly connected to my twitter friends, as I do to my son’s soccer team, the writer’s circle that I belong to, the people at Consult Hyperion and so on.

These notions of community as the locus of the next money connect with the work of Gill Ringland, who wrote a report for Long Finance called “In Safe Hands? The Future of Financial Services”. The report explored four scenarios for financial services in 2050, labelled “Second Hand”, “Virtual Hand”, “Long Hand” and “Many Hands”.

In the Second Hand scenario we remain rooted in the physical world and geography still matters, the Washington consensus holds and we manage to muddle through.

The Virtual Hand scenario is one where the Washington consensus proceeds. The report, however, sees a breakdown of international institutions and regards this scenario as most unlikely, largely because it is insufficiently diverse and its homogeneity means it is unable to resist more shocks. Since it ends in chaos, it will collapse into one of the other scenarios.

In the more likely Long Hand scenario, there is a breakdown of the Washington consensus and it is replaced with agreements between what the report calls “affinity groups”. There’s a certain amount of tiptoeing here, because no-one wants to offend affinity groups that may coincide with ethnic or religious divisions, but I think we can all see that the nature of such virtual communities make this a realistic projection.

Personally, I can’t help but see the final Many Hands scenario as the most likely. In this scenario, international society reforms around city-states. This scenario explores the impact of parallel shifts in power away from nation states toward cities and away from “the West”. The report talks about a system of 50 or so global city-states (including London, Istanbul and Singapore in the first rank) forming the backbone of not just the economy, but society.

So what does all this mean for financial services in general and payments in particular? The report suggests that ICT will reduce the size of the financial sector overall, perhaps even doing away with some sub-sectors altogether (insurance being specifically mentioned as being under threat). It also, to my mind, supports the idea that community, rather than national, currencies are a more likely medium-term vision than some sort of global currency.

Untitled

Nick Norman from Consult Hyperion chairs the NFC session.
Thanks to everyone who took part in the sessions. 

This why I watch the evolution of money in virtual worlds, online games and social networks with such interest, because I think that the seeds of new monetary arrangements and institutions are being planted here and not in the corridors of the European Central Bank. So the news that Facebook has a billion inhabitants catches my eye. So does the fact that the Google Wallet stores coupons and loyalty points as well as a credit card. So does Bitcoin appearing in The Economist and e-gold showing up in pension portfolios. This isn’t a vision of hippynomics or anti-capitalist fantasy. An ecosystem founded on a greater number of diverse form of money, particularly rooted in communities, whether those communities are geographic or virtual, offers greater flexibility and resilience. Stability is good for business as well as society. Banks won’t vanish because they are lending you kilowatt hours instead of Yen. (As a matter of fact, banks were invented a long time before money was, because people needed to store, and borrow, things like grain.)

What does this have to do with the winters of the eastern seaboard? Well, governments, central banks and the existing international monetary institutions are the ones using the newly-invented refrigerators to create ice that is being sent in wooden ships around the world. Meanwhile Facebook, Google and kids in basements the length of Silicon Valley are figuring out how to give everyone a refrigerator so that they can do it themselves. My message to the folks at Occupy? Stay cool. If you don’t like the man’s money, make your own.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Christmas memories

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] A few years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Vienna in December and visiting the Christmas market at the Hapsburg Summer Palace, shortly before returning home to Woking to engage in the traditional Yuletide pastime of filling out Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs self-asssessment tax return. Thus, while most people associate Vienna and Christmas with the market and mulled wine and carols, which were every bit as beautiful and wonderful as you might imagine (it was even snowing when I was there: perfect!), I naturally think about Vienna at this time of year because of the capture of King Richard I at Christmas 1192 and the tax returns that it lead to.

You’ll probably remember something of Richard from school, but as an aide memoire here is the potted description in Christopher Lee’s This Sceptred Isle. He summarises thus: “Richard I (1157-99) was to rule for just ten years, mostly in absentia. But in that decade he built a naval town, Portsmouth, on the south coast; drew up the first Articles of War; sold Scotland its independence; led a great Crusade; and would be called Richard Coeur de Lion”. What a guy.

Richard the Lionheart was captured on his way home from the Holy Land, taken near Vienna by Leopold V, Duke of Austria. Richard had fallen out with Leopold during the Crusade, when early attempts at forging a common European foreign policy towards the Middle East had faltered just short of Jerusalem. Leopold was quite rightly excommunicated for the kidnapping by Pope Celestine III (imprisoning a crusader really did cross the line in the twelfth century). Leopold sold Richard to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI (was also excommunicated).

Henry demanded a ransom for 150,000 marks for the release of Richard. This is something in the region of two billion quid at today’s prices but that figure doesn’t quite convey the magnitude of the ransom. Sending two billion quid from London to Vienna can be done today with a transit van full of 500 euro notes, but in 1193, the problem of moving something like twice the total annual income of the English Crown across a thousand miles of warring European principalities took some amazing logistics. This was a unique episode in English history and had far-reaching consequences. Forum friend David Boyle wrote an absolutely outstanding book about this: “Blondel’s Song“. In it, he says, 

Taxation for Richard’s ransom had a profound effect on English government. The accounts may have long since disappeared – and may even have been destroyed by those who felt embarrassed by the public record of their generosity to Richard when his brother was on the throne. But it marked the beginning of the shift from feudal payments to the very start of taxing income.

I would be impossible to imagine collecting taxes on such a massive scale (or, indeed, at all) in many modern countries, so the feat should not be underestimated. It took an inventive series of taxes, enforced and collected, to get the King back.

Both clergy and laymen were taxed for a quarter of the value of their property, the gold and silver treasures of the churches were confiscated, and money was raised from the scutage and the carucage taxes.

[From Richard I of England – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

Scutage was the tax paid by knights to get out of military service (and was one of the main causes of the discontent leading to the Magna Carta in 1215). Carucage was the land tax. The authorities had initially created it as the medieval equivalent of Nick Clegg’s mansion tax, imposed on anyone with property worth more than ten shillings. But this didn’t bring in the anticipated revenue, so a few months later it was time for a full-blown land tax. It was first imposed in 1194 and fell upon landowners at an initial rate of two shillings per 100 acres. Through these and other taxes, the English gathered several tons of silver. David says twenty tons, but in Alison Weir’s “Eleanor of Acquitaine: By the Wrath of God, Queen of England“, the figure implied is considerably higher, more like fifty tons. The money was brought to London in the form of treasure (melted down to form ingots) and coins.

My 1962 copy of “Money in Britain” says that there were no continuously minted gold coins in England until the reign of Henry III (1216-72). The coins for the ransom must have been mainly in the form of the silver pennies brought into existence under Richard’s father, Henry II. His mint master, Isaac the Jew, set the 92.5 percent pure silver standard (“the ancient right standard of England”) that continued until the 1920s.  In 1257 the twenty penny (one-twelfth of a pound Sterling) gold coin was struck. This didn’t last very long and in 1265 it was replaced with a twenty four penny “florin” worth one-tenth of a pound. There were still florin coins when I was a kid, as they were minted until 1967, but they didn’t have the same economic impact as Henry III’s florin which was worth a couple of hundred quid at today’s prices.

Meanwhile, under Queen Eleanor’s direction, the growing piles of cash were stashed in the crypt of St. Paul’s, then the administrative centre of London. It took a long time to build the ransom there. When the Germans popped in in 1193 to see how things we coming along — checking out the tally sticks and the pipe rolls to assess the rate of collection and to take delivery of the first tranche of the ransom — there were only about fifteen tons of silver. This was loaded onto a fleet of ships and sent off to Henry. At the end of the year, on 20th December 1193, Queen Eleanor set off with the rest of the cash, arriving at Henry’s court on 17th January, so it only took three weeks. Now, of course, sending money from England to Germany can take as little as three or four days

The money was transported to Germany under a simple regulatory structure, the “King’s Peril”, which meant that were the money to have been lost along the way, it was an English problem. Until the money was actually in Henry’s hands then it was Richard’s responsibility, even in Henry’s lands. Eleanor made it, and handed the balance of the ransom over on 4th February and Richard was released. He landed back in England on 13th March 1194, bringing this incredible episode in English history to an end and the only records of the greatest tax raid in English history that remained were the tally sticks.

Why did they send atoms, rather than bits about atoms? They had no alternative. The bill of exchange, the standard cross-border payment instrument in these pre-SEPA times, was a century away. And in any case, bills of exchange were not cheap. Peter Spufford in his magnificent Power and Profit, the Merchant in Medieval Europe, talks about the “specie point” at which it became cheaper to transport bullion than to buy a bill of exchange! And while bills of exchange boosted the money supply for commerce, they did not replace bullion, as sooner or later imbalances would need to be settled and so the wagon trains of gold and silver would rumble between trading centres.

The colossal ransom paid for Richard had some considerable consequences. The impact on Austria remains to this day. Leopold used part of the ransom to found the city of Wiener Neustadt, but more importantly the Austrian mint was founded in 1194 to make coins from the silver handed over as Richard’s ransom. This had an impact across central Europe as other rulers began to centralise their coinage too and local currencies began to vanish. Henry VI also created a new silver coinage in Sicily.

The impact back in England was also long lasting. Throughout this period, the Jewish community in England were called upon to extend huge loans to the Crown to add to the ransom. This had a terrible consequence, because in order to provide these loans they had to call in their loans to other people — minor aristocrats, farmers, business people and so on — which caused great resentment. In March 1194 a conference of Jewish financiers was organised in Northampton and representatives from major cities attended, other than (for example) York and Bury St. Edmunds, since the Jews there had be slaughtered in the pogroms of 1190. (These were widespread. Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews, for example, tells how “all the Jews who were found in their own houses in Norwich were slaughtered”.) The purpose of the 1194 conference was to work out how much more the Jews could contribute to the ransom, as indeed they were called on to do. Under Richard, there had been an inquiry into the pogroms and Christian-Jewish financial supervision committees created. David says these were partly an early attempt at banking regulation and partly to protect the Jewish community in return for its considerable contributions to the ransom. Christopher Dyer explores this further in Making a Living in the Middle Ages—The People of Britain 850-1520, saying that the Jews were the Crown’s mechanism for indirectly taxing landowners. The heavy taxes imposed on the Jewish community were passed on in interest rates, so that the common borrowers would blame the Jews rather than government spending for their reduced circumstances. Having come to England after the Norman conquest as moneychangers and bullion dealers, England’s Jews were reduced by a combination of taxation and murder until they were eventually expelled in 1290.

A side effect of the silver exodus form England was that while local currencies circulated to substitute for the missing pennies for a while, the money literally ran out. After all, a quarter of England’s coinage had vanished (which David calls a “deflationary shock that England needed”), but somehow commerce continued. Spufford reminds us that “Only in the short run did political, or occasionally religious, actions have greater effects than trade balances on the large-scale movement of silver and gold, coined and uncoined”. It is an astonishing testament to England’s wealth and administration that the very, very high level of taxation necessary to pay that (literally) King’s Ransom could be imposed and collected, yet in the long run the economy survived and grew. I’ll be thinking about that when I finish at hmrc.gov.uk in a couple of days time and press “Submit” yet again. 

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

The slower payment service (SPS) is still going strong

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] Payments aren’t just about contactless taps on the buses and chip and PIN in the shoe shop and PayPal on eBay. They are also about banks clearing with other banks, brokers settling with other brokers and companies paying other companies. Long ago, in the days before electronic payments, the City of London, the world’s financial capital and the very hub of the global money system had simple and straightforward payment and settlement systems for handling these transactions. Chaps did business with other chaps (dictum meum pactum and all that) and then they sent their men around to settle up.

the inspectors found that the bank’s clerks who did business at the Exchequer each day walked through the streets of London with more than 100,000 pounds in bank notes carried in a “small Tin Chest,”

[From U.K. Bank Inspectors of 1783 Found Some Familiar Flaws – Bloomberg]

In other words, in 1783, the British empire was kept afloat by chaps were wandering around the Square Mile with the equivalent of TWENTY MILLION QUID in biscuit tins. Well, if it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it I guess. The system of having chaps wandering around with wads of wonga continued, essentially, until the early 1990s, when what I understand is the second biggest robbery in history took place (I don’t think they count the taxpayer bailouts of too-big-to-fail investment banks).

John Goddard was a 58 year old messenger working for broker Sheppards, who was mugged whilst carrying a briefcase on a quiet London side street. However, the contents of that briefcase contained £292 million in bearer bonds. Goddard was delivering Bank of England Treasury bills from banks and building societies.

[From 10 Largest Robberies in History]

I well remember this mugging of astonishing proportions, because at the time one of our biggest projects was with the Bank of England, working on what eventually put a stop to the chaps wandering around with satchels stuffed with M4: When the Bank of England’s Central Gilts Office (CGO) and Central Moneymarkets Office (CMO) went online.

One of the very first projects that Consult Hyperion worked on was the Bank of England Central Gilts Office (CGO), way back in the days of “Big Bang”. We were subsequently chosen by the Bank of England to work on the Central Moneymarkets Office (CMO) and then CREST, the equity settlement system that they created when the Stock Exchange’s TAURUS project collapsed. These are now part of Euroclear, which makes the card scheme networks look like loose change: it currently handles an average of HALF-A-TRILLION pounds per day in gilt, equity and money market trades.

[From Digital Money: Heavy weather]

That was then. This is now. In the last quarter, they turned over FOUR HUNDRED TRILLION EUROS. So thanks to the efficiency of electronic payments and the sterling (pun intended) work of our experts in securing electronic transactions, you just don’t see people wandering round with huge quantities of cash on them them. Oh, wait…

I watch some people leave with bundles of notes – one man, who has brought in several kilos of gold, walks out on to the street with nearly £75,000 in £50 notes stuffed into a plastic carrier bag.

[From The great Asian gold theft crisis | UK news | The Guardian]

A bank would have to file a suspicious transaction report, wouldn’t it? I mean if someone came in with 75 grand in euros and wanted them changed to pounds. And given the strongest money laundering regulations in place around the world and the diligence with which banks enforce these regulations, I’m sure this money has legitimate sources. And as for the gold, surely you don’t see people carrying gold around any more. Oh, wait…

AN airport maintenance worker who stole cash and three gold bars worth more than 550,000 yuan (US$86,136) from a passenger’s luggage on a carousel belt was sentenced to 11 years in prison, the Changning District People’s Court said yesterday.

[From Airport worker’s theft punished — Shanghai Daily | 上海日报 — English Window to China New]

When I fly, I won’t put my laptop charger in my checked baggage since I assume that there is a reasonable chance that it will get lost or stolen. I really don’t think I’d entrust gold bars to the carousel. If I had a load of gold bars, I want to travel with them myself so that they would be safe. Oh, wait…

Armed men dressed as police boarded a fishing boat Friday in Curaçao and stole about 70 gold bars worth an estimated $11.5 million (£7.2 million), police in the southern Caribbean island said.

[From Multi-million gold heist from boat in Caribbean – Telegraph]

What is going on? Secure, cost-effective electronic alternatives are in place yet people carry around gold bars and bags of cash with associated transaction costs (taking into account transport, loss, theft and storage) that are vastly greater than anything CHAPS, FPS or Euroclear might charge. There is, surely, only one explanation. Non-electronic large payments made using bearer instruments such as 500 euro notes or gold bars (or the Slower Payment Service, SPS, as I think of them) are all about crime.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

These are a few of my favourite things

Greyscale backing image

[Dave Birch] The future of money. Simple. It's the galactic credit, right? Like in Star Wars? (Or Star Trek, possibly). Wrong. We can't make a single currency work for Germany and Greece (or, for that matter for Liverpool and London). It certainly isn't going to work for Aldershot and Alpha Centuri. So if it isn't going to be a galactic credit, what is it going to be?

Now is a good time to be thinking about the future of money, because it is on the horizon. The weak signals of change are detectable. Contactless cards and mobile phones, Bitcoins and BA Miles, Amazon gift certificates and WoW Gold. We have the technology, as they say. But then we've had it for a while. Why now?

I think it's because money, as we know it, was 40 years old in 2011 and is having a bit of a mid-life crisis. When Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of the US dollar in 1971, we entered the world of “fiat currency”. From that day on, dollars have been backed by the full faith and credit of the United States only. They've been virtual.

Maybe it's time for real change. We've been here before. Around four hundred years ago, things were going horribly wrong with the money of Merrie England. By the 1690s there was a full-scale currency crisis. The economy was being undermined by the limited and poor quality coin base. With the nascent industrial revolution driving the demand for better money, there was pressure for change. Yet if you had asked people about the future of money at that time, I'm sure they would thought about better quality coins.

What actually happened was complete revolution. By the time Isaac Newton (who had been brought in as Master of the Mint for the Great Recoinage of 1696) died in 1727, Britain had a central bank, paper money, a gold standard, current accounts and overdrafts. I suggest that we are in the same position as industrialising England with a paradigm mismatch that explains the mid-life crisis. We’re using the mentality of the gold standard and the institutions of paper to try and deliver the money for a new economy. Money is depressed because it no longer recognises the world around it, it feels out of place and incongruous. It's tired and balding and grey, rather like your presenter, in fact.

We’re in a post-industrial revolution but we’re still using the money, and the institutions of money, of the industrial age and this time, the technology with unexpected consequences is not the tally stick or banknote but the mobile phone. In a generation or so, there will be a new set of monetary arrangements in place. New currency and new institutions. Can we guess what they will be like, any more than an English merchant of 1680 could guess that there would soon be a central bank, banknotes, uniform coins and a gold standard?

I don't believe in the idea of a universal currency, or for that matter a European currency, or for that matter a UK currency. The future, I suspect, will be more diverse. Not a galactic credit or a world currency or a euro or even a pound. Secure microchips, the interweb and wireless will deliver a platform for thousand, millions of currencies. That sounds complicated, but it isn't, because not only will you be using your mobile phone to pay for things but also to get paid. You won't have to be in the loop. There'll be an app for that.

Now, that doesn't answer the question of what these currencies will actually be, which is a fascinating topic. There are both left and right, revolutionary and reactionary approaches — the return to the gold standard or the switch to the Brixton Pound — that deserve to be explored. The market is beginning to experiment with fundamentally new kinds of money. Money based on bits, reputation, energy, time and who knows what else.

I have no idea what the money of 2050 will look like, but I can bore for Britain about what it might look like. And I can prove it to you in person if you come along to my favourite pub in the entire world, The Keystone, for a currey and a pint on Monday 19th November at 7pm for the Cafe Scientifique evening talk on "The Future of Money: The Galactic Guilder or the Guildford Groat?" by me.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

I share Barclays vision – cash is “tedious”

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] Here’s an interesting comment on cashlessness from Barclays Bank. They say that they are in favour of it because…

…we know better than most is that its most expensive and troublesome form is cash.

Cash is dangerous in large amounts and tedious in small. Of all the aspects of our trading life it is the most primitive. Worst of all, cash is inefficient. It can’t be right to need eight million new bank notes every day.

Cash is not, though, inevitable. Some time in the future, sophisticated communities will grow out of the need to carry pocketful of metal and paper tokens. Every bank looks forward to that day… Now we in Barclays are taking another maior step in the same direction…

This enterprise is enormous. and the rewards will not come soon. But in years to come we shall be able to claim that we pioneered…

You might think that this is a comment made concerning the Barclaycard PayTag sticker or their contactless debit card, but it’s actually taken from an advertisement in “The Times” from 15th July 1966. That’s almost half a century ago, and according to the most recent figures from the Payments Council, cash is still used in more than half of all retail transactions (and its use actually went up last year).

In the last couple of weeks alone, there has been a slew of articles and reports saying either that cash is as strong as ever, or that it’s on its last legs.

[From The Payments Debate Pantomime — Counting On Currency]

It’s not only Barclays and me who think that cashlessness is on the way. The American Bankers Association (ABA) began investigating the possibility of a cashless and chequeless society back in 1967, at which time it was thought that the US might be chequeless by 1980, with the use of cash falling substantially soon thereafter. So much for that.

I read somewhere that in 1970, the book “Tomorrow’s World” (based on the TV show) had some forecasts for the future that now appear ludicrously optimistic (eg, a polar ice city with a population of 500,000 by 1988). It also predicted that in 2008 the “Bank of England withdraws cash and notes in favour of credit-card economy” and apparently the TV show had featured a lengthy segment on this cashless future, discussing the ambitious real-time banking system under development by Barclays at the time. This was, incidentally, the Burroughs system that turned out to be the disaster described in Ian Martin’s “Too far ahead of its time: Britain, Burroughs and real-time banking in the 1960s” presented at the Society for the History of Technology in October 2010 (many thanks to Rory Cellan-Jones for pointing me to this fascinating paper).

So where are we now? There are pockets of cashlessness and they are spreading. Scandinavia leads the way and it’s easy to find anecdotes about cash vanishing from retail environments to illustrate the trend, one of my favourites being the church collection plate.

The decline of cash is noticeable even in houses of worship, like the Carl Gustaf Church in Karlshamn, southern Sweden, where Vicar Johan Tyrberg recently installed a card reader to make it easier for worshippers to make offerings.

[From Sweden: Country could be first to go cashless as even churches are accepting cards for offerings | Mail Online]

Having been out and about giving a couple of talks on ceaselessness recently, I was wondering whether there is a simple measure of cashlessnes beyond the proportion of retail payments in cash, bearing in mind that much cash is is no longer used to support industry and commerce. The majority of the cash “in circulation” in Europe is used only for criminal purposes and isn’t “in circulation” at all, it’s stuffed under mattresses in the Balkans, in suitcases in Luxembourg deposit boxes and in Iberian property developers lock-ups. So look at M0 doesn’t really give any sense of the sped or scale of change.

Then I remembered that Payment Systems Europe developed a useful metric for this: the Debit Cash Displacement (DCD) score, a measure of the extent to which debit cards have replaced cash (measured by ATM withdrawals) in retail transactions. If you look at this score for Europe, you find that (as you would expect) the Scandinavians in the lead with the UK, along with a group of other countries, somewhere close to the middle. Three countries stand out, to me at least, in this chart.

DCD PSE

Norway. Norway, as we knew anyway, is the most cashless country in Europe (excluding Iceland, of course). Around three-quarters of all retail transactions are in cash and around three-quarters of all of the cash in circulation is what the Bank of Norway politely refer to as “unexplained”.

Germany. The amount of cash changing hands in Germany remains surprising to foreigners. My sister recently returned from a holiday in Germany and it was one of the aspects of the country that she found so remarkable that she commented on it on her return.

Greece. No wonder the Greek government’s ability to tax is so limited when almost all transactions are still in cash. I’m still of the mind that the social factor, the tax burden on the law-abiding increasing to cover the tax evasion in the grey economy, might nudge us to the tipping point.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, Barclays are still working hard to make their dream from 46 years ago come true. They’ve got contactless debit cards, PayTag stickers for phones, PayBand wristbands for festivals and QuickTap NFC handsets. They’ve got PingIt for mobile-initiated account-to-account transfer via FPS. Yet the use of cash went up last year.

What’s missing? Why hasn’t the 1966 vision come to fruition? Why wasn’t the US cheque free by 1980? Why didn’t the Bank of England abandon cash in 2008? I’d say there are probably three factors:

  1. POS density, a problem being solved for us by the mobile phone. With the wisdom of hindsight it’s easy to see that the limiting factor on the spread of cashlessness is the prevalence of readers, not cards. Now that Square, PayPal, Intuit, M-Powa, JUSP and many others are fixing this problem. Since, to all intents and purposes, everyone has a mobile phone so now everyone has a POS and no-one needs cash.
  2. Unbanked and underbanked customers, a problem being solved for us by the non-banks, and the steady separation of payments from banking.
  3. Cost misalignment, which cross-subsidises cash and cheques from more cost-effective electronic services. If the retailers are going to start surcharging, then surely banks will stop subsidising.

Technology, business and social factors are combining to drive electronic payments forward, so I’d say let’s keep the faith! When we get to the 50th anniversary of the Barclays advert, on this day in 2016, it’s a pretty safe bet that cash will account for less than half of retail transactions. We’re on the way. 

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Story time

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] We need to have a narrative about what the future will be so that we can share in creating it. I’ve heard more than one conference speaker refer to the way in which “Star Trek” guided the evolution of the mobile phone industry and one conference speaker (me) refer to the way in which “Dr. Who” will guide the evolution of the digital identity industry. There’s a great paper on this called “How the Future Shaped the Past: The Case of the Cashless Society” by Bernardo Bátiz‐Lazo (Bangor University), Thomas Haigh (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; The Haigh Group) and David Stearns (Seattle Pacific University). It sets out to explore the relationship between the narrative and organisational strategy.

This paper invites readers to look into how beliefs about future events help to better understand organizational change. Our argument is that the adoption of information technology and the adoption of new organizational forms around it have been driven by shifts in collective ideas of legitimate organizational development. As an example we focus on the establishment during the 1960s of a vision within US retail financial services, namely of the “cashless/checkless society”. The article tells of the power of this “imaginaire” to bring consensus in driving actual technological developments.

I’d never heard this word before, but I love it. An “imaginaire” is an imagined new social order built around the deployment of an emerging, unproven technology in a particular way. It’s not quite the same thing as a vision, as I understand it, because an imaginaire requires more detail, more understanding of how the technology will work and how interacting with it will change the society in which it is embedded. Naturally, this appeals to me. I’m the sort of person who, when they read in the paper that the government is going to install black boxes to monitor all internet traffic, starts wondering how they will work before I start wondering about the implications for civil liberties, taxpayers and novelists.

The reason why I was looking at this paper was that I was preparing some material for a client workshop and I was looking at why people who were in favour of spending money on the development of a card business in the 1960s were in favour of it, and why those against it were against it, if you see what I mean. Reading through the paper, I came across this succinct statement, which I immediately recognised to be a fantastic reflection on the state of mobile payments ahead of my evening out chairing Mobile Monday in London. The authors say

Successful innovation therefore depends, implicitly at least, on convincing others of the existence of a future in which the innovation is already accepted.

I’m already convinced of a future in which mobile payments are part of the mass market — I’m already curious about the imaginaire (e.g., the rise of alternative currencies on the mobile money platforms) — but how can I share that with other people? Are mobile payments part of the conventional wisdom, or only for people like me? Is it simply too soon to be talking about this?

A recent survey of more than 1,000 technology experts conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Elon University predicts that by 2020 “mobile payment systems” will gain mainstream acceptance as a method of payment and could largely replace cash and credit cards for most online and in-store purchases by smartphone and tablet users.

[From Latest Pew Research Survey Predicts Decline of Cash, Credit Cards by 2020]

Of course I agree with this bullish prediction. To me, it seems obvious. The more interesting question is what form mobile-centric payments will take. Taking William Gibson to heart — the future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed — where can we look around to see plausible candidates for the mass market mobile payments solutions for 2020? And would be even able to see them now? Did people understand how, for example, payment cards were going to pan out?

Within a five year period from 1965 to 1970 the checkless-­‐cashless future had passed from a somewhat marginal speculation to a taken for granted part of the industry’s conventional wisdom. No such payment system was in commercial operation, or had been proven in a pilot study of more than trivial scope. In fact the technology to realise the vision did not yet exist, as a series of failed projects in the financial industry during the late 1960s and early 1970s would demonstrate.

This is where we are with mobile payments today, isn’t it? Mobile payments are now taken for granted as being an integral part of the future landscape. I think we’ve gone further than pilots in some areas, but nevertheless the point is that we can’t point to France or the USA or Germany or anywhere except Kenya and say “look, mobile payments are an incredible success, they are the future”.

There’s no tangible, proven way to get any return on investment for the implementation. So why do it? Credit cards are ubiquitous. Credit cards are fast and easy. Almost all merchants have the ability to process payments via credit card. So why? Why are we solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

[From NFC Is Great, But Mobile Payments Solve A Problem That Doesn’t Exist | TechCrunch]

That’s a perfectly valid perspective: but remember that people were sceptical about plastic cards once. Until the early 1970s it was not at all clear that the main mechanism for cashlessness would be the plastic card. The invention of the magnetic stripe changed everything. In time the mobile phone will have as much impact as the magnetic stripe, but in a very different way. For one thing, an online world entered through the mobile handset does not need the same kind of standardisation that the magnetic stripe world did. Back then, it made sense to coalesce around a Visa and a MasterCard, because not every shop was connected to every bank and not every shop was connected to every consumer. But now they are.

our world is complex and only ‘one’ mobile payment platform is not enough

[From Mobile Payments: A Trillion Dollar Industry… Once Everyone Can Actually Make A Payment | TechCrunch]

A sound insight, and I couldn’t agree more with this. Given the new technology, there is no need to have a single universal system any more. My mobile wallet will be more than capable of choosing between multiple different payment methods to select the one that is most appropriate in any given transaction.

There are two big and interrelated questions about how people will behave when they start using electronic wallets on a large scale. The first is whether they will consolidate all their spending into a single account or spread it even more widely than they do now. The arguments seem finely balanced. Those who expect spending to be consolidated reckon that when people are no longer faced with a physical choice, they will simply use whichever card or account has been set as the default. Those who think that spending will be spread more widely point out that phones eliminate the inconvenience of carrying around a lot of different cards, which may prompt some consumers to have more banking relationships.

[From Mobile payments: A wealth of wallets | The Economist]

On balance, I come down on the latter side, largely because I think that wallets will be shaped more by the retail experience (which varies greatly from environment to environment) rather than by the payment experience. But I don’t know enough about the future of retailing to construct a narrative around that. Some people try to do it by looking at Japan. While I always make a point of saying that the Japanese mobile payments market is special and not a template for the UK (or, for that matter, the US) it is nonetheless interesting to see what is going on there. The latest survey results I’ve seen (from the end of March), about a third of iPhone, Android and other smartphone users say that they have already used “electronic money” system and another 12% say they are planning to use them. Note, though, that the iPhone doesn’t currently have the electronic money (i.e., NFC) interface, but (and I’m paraphrasing a machine-assisted translation here!)

28% of respondents said that when an “iPhone equipped with electronic money function released” they will consider replacing their current handset with it… so it was confirmed that the presence or absence of the electronic money interface is a selection criterion when buying smartphone.

[From Japan Mobile Payments Survey by Wireless Watch Japan]

Again, I’m paraphrasing a machine-assisted translation.

Of the people who have used electronic money, 73% have used Edy, 37% Suica and 27% nanaco. Where do they use their electronic money-equipped mobile phones? Predominantly at convenience stores (73%), vending machines (48%), transit (37%), fast food 34%. These electronic money systems are all prepaid and 51% of people load them from payment cards, while 39% load them in-store by handing over cash.

[From Japan Mobile Payments Survey by Wireless Watch Japan]

The survey also says that 36% of smartphone users pay with mobile money at “Regular Kip”, but I couldn’t figure out what this meant – can any correspondent help? I would love to have regular kip as part of my imaginaire. By way of contrast to the Japanese figures, American figures would appear to support the sceptics.

The ability to make mobile payments is “very unimportant” to about half of credit card customers with smartphones, Lightspeed found. Only about 15% of the customers surveyed said it was somewhat or very important to them to be able to pay with their smartphones.

[From Mobile Payments Very Unimportant to Consumers – American Banker Article]

You have to wonder about this sort of thing. Are these real insights? Almost no-one in the US has ever used their mobile phone to pay for something in a shop, so why anyone would ask them about it isn’t clear to me. These results don’t mean that mobile payments will fail in America, they mean the general public has no narrative about mobile payments, and I hope to change that (although I don’t know how yet).

By the by, the paper is particularly fascinating (to me, at least) because it touches on something that I’ve written about several times before but in a way that begins to explain rather than merely observe.

In contrast, the vision of a “cashless society” appears to have originated within the world of business and moved only later into the realm of fiction.

A few years ago I had the good fortune to bump into the author Bruce Sterling, who was kind enough to let me interview him for our podcast series. In the interview, I asked him why the future fiction about money was so unimaginative (it doesn’t seem to go further than the “galactic credit”). He said it was because it was boring. Indeed the authors observe that

On the other hand, readers and writers of science fiction were perhaps more interested in rockets and physics than they were in banking, economics, or organisational innovation. When a fictional society was cashless it was generally also a moneyless utopia

So what is the narrative vision for the future of payments that we can all share? If there is one, I suspect it’s more about biometrics than mobile phones.

P.S. The Munich paper notes that the phrase “cashless society” appears to date from 1958 although the concept is, of course, ancient. See for example, Edward Bellamy‘s 1888 sensation “Looking Backward 2000-1887”:

Yet the book has special place in my canon because the time-traveller is told by his host, the good Doctor Leete (who has a daughter called Edith: E. Leete, geddit?), that there is no such thing as cash in the year 2000.

[From Digital Money: 1886 and all that]

P.P.S. It also refers in passing to management consultants creating “expert knowledge and client ignorance” to promote their services. That’s not imaginaire, it’s marketing, which is different.

.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of 
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

 

C50

Greyscale backing image

[Dave Birch] We touched on the world in 2050 at the 2012 Digital Money Forum. You might recall (if you were there) that Gill Ringland talked about her exploration of the world of financial services in 2050 from the report "In Safe Hands" (published at Long Finance) that I wrote about earlier this year.

To do this she used an interesting pairs of axes to set out a 2×2 matrix: the “Washington consensus” vs. “Community-based values” on one axis and “mundane” and “virtual” (essentially) on the other axis to reflect the extent to which real or virtual communities come to shape the economy and therefore financial services.

[From Long and longer]

Having listened to Gill and the audience response to her scenarios, I'm more convinced than ever that the world of the "C50" (the organisation of the 50 richest city-states that will replace the G20 as the mechanism for "managing" the world economy) which comes from her "Many Hands" scenario, will be the most likely basis for the future economic organisation of a successful, functional world.

“Many Hands”, which I can’t help feeling is the most likely, sees society reform around city-states. This panders to my long-held appreciation of Jane Jacobs work on "Cities and the Wealth of Nations".

[From Long and longer]

A world economy built up from cities and their hinterlands will obviously demand different financial services and institutions from one based on national economies. This Jacobs-influenced city-centric perspective came to mind when I happened to read

The city has achieved a status in contemporary culture as a focal point for counteracting the Global Mindset that has emerged as a result of digital culture. As a result of the emphasis on connectivity and the cloud, people are anxious to lay down roots at a local, physical level. This report explores the role of the city as an increasingly important identity anchor – particularly for youth…

[From Canvas8 – The city as an identity anchor]

What this means to me is that the future sense of identity will be city-centric, with people seeing themselves as Londoners and New Yorkers rather than Brits and Yanks. Their loyalties will be more local than ours and the relationships between cities will replace the relationships between countries as the most important tensions and dynamics. Cities will undoubtedly form defence alliances and trade pacts and so forth with each other but I wonder if they will give up any real sovereignty? It's an interesting and enjoyable area of speculation, which is why it went down so well with the Digital Money Delegates this year.

What will be the model around that city-centric identity? How will those identities related to trade, commerce and society as a whole? In discussing that C50 scenario, Gill makes a passing but powerful observation on this future, saying that individuals will protect their "personal identity, credit ratings and parking spaces" at all costs and that since monetary arrangements (nation-state fiat currencies) will have collapsed, the commercial paper of global corporations will be used as international currency.

In the language of digital identity, digital money and digital networks (in other words, the language of Consult Hyperion) Gill is predicting a reputation economy anchored in the mundane, a world in which the monetary guidebooks already at hand (e.g., Hayek's "The Denationalisation of Money" and De Bono's CSFI pamphlet "The IBM Dollar") take us through a landscape animated by new technology but shaped by physical as well as virtual communities.

Personal identity. I might take issue with Gill here and say "personal identities" but I know what she means. Privacy, identity transactions, reputation management and so forth.

Credit rating. The commercial reputation that means that you can buy or sell, whether an individual or an organisation will be central to economic existence. In a networked society, this is more likely to be something that comes from the social graph than the conventional credit rating of today.

Parking spaces. I'm going to talk to Gill about this in a future podcast, but on my reading of the report I take this to mean the right to live in a particular place. These rights will certainly be of critical importance to the individual, since their own identity will be closely related to the city (and hinterland) of residence.

What does this all mean for transactions? Gill explains in the report that in order to create scenarios (i.e., internally-consistent views of possible futures) for a generation from now, she found it useful to look two generations back, and consider the asset classes managed by the financial services industry in 1930. These were broadly commodities, cash, equities and brains. Looking forward, she adds a fifth asset class based on demographics for 2050. This seems to me especially interesting in the C50 context because, for example, a permit to reside in a desirable city could well become a key tradable commodity.

Transactions, therefore, become the exchange of these asset classes (but in digital form, of course). So Hayek or de Bono? Banks issuing private currencies or commercial paper? I wonder if there is an automatic implication that the "cash" of cities will become the most important kind? In other words, having abandoned Sterling for London Lolly and US Dollars for New York Notes and LA Loonies, will these be sufficient to provide the medium of exchange for the future economy. Right now, almost all transactions are local and even at the national level only 1%-2% of European transactions are cross border. If I live in London and use London Lolly for the train, for lunch and at the supermarket, is it such a big deal to convert it to Moscow Moolah to buy something online? Especially when your phone does it for you?

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Currency and technology

Greyscale backing image
[Dave Birch] At LIFT 12 in Geneva, I spoke about the future of money (not again, I hear you groan) but in order to help a non-finance audience to see why I was making one or two particular suggestions, I made an early diversion into Economics 101 and the functions of money.

David Birch

photo by Ivo Naepflin photo.naepflin.com

As Forum friend Keith Hart, author of “The Memory Bank” and an anthropologist by trade, observed recently, summarising these functions more succinctly than I did:

[Polanyi] argued that only modern money combines the four functions (payment, standard, store and exchange) in a few “all-purpose” symbols, national currency. By contrast, primitive and archaic forms of money attached the separate uses to different symbolic objects or “special-purpose” monies.

[From A Crisis of Money: the demise of national capitalism | openDemocracy]

It was very interested to hear this point raised in another form at the Future of Money & Technology in San Francisco, where Joe Johnston from Connect.me brought it up in the panel discussion around “The New Value Movement”. He made the point that the money used for local commerce, for “merchants” and for international trade had in the past been different (e.g., wampum, bills of exchange and gold) whereas modern money uses one currency for everything. I think that this conception of “modern money” is one rooted in a particular set of institutional arrangements that emerged at the same time as the nation-state did and so, it seems to me, must be related to it in some way. Bringing the functions together became the preferred mechanism for organising and managing money in the industrial revolution, but it is far from clear where it should be the preferred mechanism for doing the same in the post-industrial revolution. I’ve come to round to this perspective from a technological analysis, but I’m hardly the only person speculating about it.

All of these functions are bundled together into a single (for lack of a better word) asset: currency. Sometimes, these functions are complementary [and sometimes the] functions of money conflict with one another.

[From Umair Haque / Bubblegeneration]

Umair was spot on with this, and I think that one of the particular instances of the conflict he refers to arises from the differing requirements for long- and short-term management, an issue related to Joe’s point about “levels”. An efficient, liquid and cost-effective means of exchange (who knows, let’s say, Facebook Credits or Google Bucks) may be entirely different from the best mechanism for deferred payment (who knows, let’s say, Gold or Kilowatt Hours). The fact that technology enables us to choose different currencies for different purposes will have, I imagine, a range of unexpected consequences. I was little disappointed that BBC Radio 4’s recent Analysis programme “What is money” didn’t explore this aspect and take it a little further. I can do no better than refer to the brilliant Professor Glyn Davies on this:

“Similarly in the era of electronic banking ‘national’ moneys are becoming increasingly anachronistic as millions of customers, irrespective of their country of domicile, are eagerly offered a variety of competing financial institutions in a variety of competing currencies. They are spoiled for choice – and national money monopolies are thereby also being ‘spoiled’, in the sense of being reduced in effectiveness. The monetary authorities always try to reassert their monopolistic power – in economic jargon, to make sure that money is exogenously created – as opposed to money supplies produced elsewhere by the working of market forces – or ‘endogenously’ as the economists describe the process.”

[From Democracy and Government Control of the Money Supply]

In a world where everyone has a mobile phone and can easily trade with everyone else, globally, then what endogenous monies might come to dominate? The answer is probably none. We aren’t looking at a future gold standard world, or a science fiction galactic credit, but a future of many, many currencies, each of which provides the most efficient means of exchange within a community. Common stores of value will bridge communities, much as beaver pelts were the store of value used to mediate between the wampum world of Native Americans and the specie world of European settlers.

This is why I think that financial institutions looking for new products and services should consider looking at money itself and perhaps open up a sandbox for new currencies. When I looked at the Bernal Bucks experiment in San Francisco before, it struck me that the idea of using local FIs (in that case, a credit union) as the mechanism for bringing new kinds of money (in that case, a local currency) in to play is a good one, but we should be casting the net wider. Perhaps mobile operators and retailers should be looking beyond loyalty points toward new forms of money and, from there, a new kind of financial sector.

These are personal opinions and should not be misunderstood as representing the opinions of
Consult Hyperion or any of its clients or suppliers

Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.