Fintech firms could play a massive role in advancing financial inclusion for women finds a new IFC report. According to the asset management and investment advisory platform, this can be done by utilising business strategies informed by analysing sex-disaggregated data.

Until now, limited research has quantified the extent to which fintech firms are actively addressing financial inclusion for women and the specific strategies that are proving successful. To fill this gap, IFC conducted a survey of 114 fintech firms in emerging markets around the globe. The report, Her Fintech Edge: Market Insights for Inclusive Growth, provides insights from fintech firms about their own perceptions and practices to deliver services to women’s customer segments.

“What is clear from this study is that strong behavioural gender differences, as well as barriers, call for fintech firms to offer differentiated solutions for women,” said Emmanuel Nyirinkindi, vice president of cross-cutting solutions, IFC. “In doing so, fintech firms can unlock the full potential of the women’s market – a valuable customer segment that exhibits greater loyalty, lower default rates, and strong revenue generation.”

Fintechs believe women are more loyal or equally as loyal as men

The survey findings show that women still make up a minority of fintech portfolios, with 63 per cent of the lending-focused fintech firms reporting that women-owned small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) make up less than a quarter of their portfolio.

Nevertheless, the report highlights that there is a strong business case for fintech firms to serve female customers. The majority of fintech firms consider women to be more loyal, less risky, and more or equally valuable customers than men. The survey found that 69 per cent of lending-focused fintech firms believe women’s loyalty is greater than or equal to that of men.

The presence of leaders who have internalised the social or commercial value of serving women is the strongest internal driver for firms intentionally targeting females. The survey found that 58 per cent of firms attribute their strategic focus on women to leaders’ belief in the importance of women’s financial inclusion.

To target women intentionally, the report explains that fintech firms need knowledge, research, financial support, and technical assistance to fully capture the women’s market.

Post-purchase buy-now pay-later could be a massive opportunity for retailers, according to J.D. Power’s BNPL satisfaction survey, published Feb. 29, 2024.

In a survey of 4,135 U.S. consumers, American Express, Chase, and Citi outperformed other category leaders in three key areas: reasonableness of terms, ease of use with digital account management, and security of account information. The second annual study found overall satisfaction with BNPL had grown by 16% in just one year.

J.D. Power’s findings suggest that retailers may be leveraging BNPL without even knowing it. Unlike Klarna, Sezzle, and other third-party solutions that appear at checkout, Plan It by American Express, My Chase Plan, and Citi Flex Pay are not part of the checkout stream. Merchants never see these direct-to-consumer offers or know when post-sale transactions convert to buy-now pay-later plans.

Miles Tullo, managing director of banking and payments at J.D. Power, was not surprised to see card issuers pull ahead in the BNPL race. “It’s going to be very hard for Affirm, Klarna, and other brands to build a buy-now pay-later solution and scale,” he said. “Because they have to go merchant by merchant and get them to say, ‘Yes, I want your checkout button on my website.’”

Tullo acknowledged, however, that third-party providers have also been “strong out of the gate” and are winning back share in interesting ways. Klarna, for example, has launched a subscription service, “Klarna Plus,” and a new authentication method, “Sign In with Klarna.” And the newest entrant in the study, Apple Pay Later, started last year and is growing quickly.

“Apple Pay is accepted in a lot of places, so Apple didn’t need to go out and convince merchants to accept this payment method because it rides on the Apple Pay transaction and the acceptance is there,” he said. “Having a massive consumer audience makes it easy for Apple to offer up an Apple Pay Later option to a consumer who’s just used Apple Pay to make a purchase, and the Apple brand, with its loyal following, is growing very quickly.”

Built to Scale

Massive customer bases and established rails put card issuers on the inside track, Tullo added, noting that post-purchase BNPL transactions are free to merchants and require no action on their part. Purchases are settled through regular card acceptance agreements, he explained, and merchants have no idea when those purchases convert to installment solutions on the backend.

“I expect new entrants in this market will likely come from additional credit and debit issuers exploring ways to get consumers to install instead of revolve their purchases,” he said, predicting that issuers, rather than independent standalone solutions, will drive BNPL growth.

Non-exclusive

I asked Tullo why retailers aren’t doing more to leverage post-purchase options, considering the numerous advantages these offers provide. For example, don’t most standalone provider agreements have an exclusivity clause restricting merchants to one BNPL provider at checkout?

“Yes, that’s correct, but they can’t exclude American Express Plan It, Apple Pay Later, and other solutions built right into their current acceptance agreements,” he said. “With the exception of large enterprises that negotiate terms, retailers that contract with most BNPL providers are locked in to one.”

Fee-free

I also asked Tullo about pricing, having seen many BNPL promotions for free-to-customer plans. He assured me that most consumers are happy to pay a convenience fee to a trusted brand.

“Generally speaking, the market has grown out of this concept that it doesn’t cost you anything as a consumer to leverage this repayment option because the merchant is paying the cost,” he said. “A $3 fee is not a deal-breaker for someone splitting an $80 purchase into four $20 payments; consumers appreciate the convenience and flexibility and consider it a fair deal.”

De-risked

Tullo pointed out that post-purchase BNPL offers from card issuers to consumers are decoupled from the shopping experience. On the flip side, he said consumers tend to associate pre-purchase BNPL deals with specific retailers. For example, he noted that someone who gets a late fee, defaults, or is dissatisfied with pre-purchase BNPL is less likely to revisit that brand, which could become a bigger trend as the BNPL market evolves.

“A customer with a subpar experience with pre-purchase BNPL will tie it back to the website where the transaction occurred,” Tullo said. “This could lead to the customer looking for another merchant offering a different buy-now pay-later solution.”

Ripe for Promotion

Considering the numerous benefits of post-purchase BNPL, I questioned why more retailers aren’t aggressively promoting these services.

American Express presents Plan It as “easier to manage; no enrollment required; longstanding support; protection and customer service; no additional loan required; and no additional payments to keep track of.”

Chase describes My Chase Plan as a way to “pay off a purchase over time in fixed, equal monthly payments. There’s no interest for this purchase once it’s placed in a plan, just a fixed monthly fee.”

Citi summarizes Citi Flex Pay as a convenient way to “split up your eligible purchases and pay over time through simple monthly installments with a fixed APR.”

Perhaps retailers could display logos of American Express Plan It, My Chase Plan, and Citi Flex Pay on checkout screens, inviting customers to explore these options.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) agreed to stop the emergency survey of Bitcoin miners as part of an agreement to end the lawsuit filed by several industry players, including the Texas Blockchain Council.

According to the March 1 court filing, the EIA must destroy any survey information it has already received and information yet to be received. It must also sequester or keep confidential that data until it is destroyed.

The controversial survey aimed to gather data on how much energy miners use. However, the industry responded with lawsuits that argued the survey would “irreparably harm” operations by forcing miners to divulge “confidential information.”

Agreement terms

As part of the agreement, the EIA will publish a new notice in the Federal Register to restart the survey process from scratch — withdrawing and replacing a previous notice from Feb 9, which did not invite comment and feedback.

The new notice must allow for a 60-day comment period, after which the EIA may conduct the survey following specific statutory and regulatory provisions.

Additionally, the EIA must consider comments submitted in response to both the new and the Feb. 9 notices as if they were submitted to the new notice.

The EIA and other defendants will additionally pay the plaintiffs — Riot Platforms and Texas Blockchain Council — $2,199.45 to cover legal costs and fees.

Controversial survey

The EIA began collecting data on mining firms in late January after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) authorized the survey as an emergency request. The controversial survey has been closely linked to the policies of the Biden administration, specifically the energy policies outlined in its 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The agencies were concerned that Bitcoin mining could accelerate alongside price growth, leading to greater energy consumption during high-demand periods and cold weather.

Republican Congressman Tom Emmer expressed opposition to the survey on Feb. 22. In addition to denying that Bitcoin mining posed a threat, Emmer noted that the EIA had justified a survey based on emergency policies but had failed to introduce the required comment period.

Industry players, including Riot Platforms, the Chamber of Digital Commerce, and the Texas Blockchain Council, filed a lawsuit against the survey, resulting in the court granting a temporary stay until March 24.

Following the legal action, the EIA paused its attempts to collect data one day later on Feb. 24.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) paused the controversial survey of crypto mining firms on Feb. 23 following a lawsuit from members of the crypto mining sector.

Crypto mining company Riot Platforms and the Texas Blockchain Council launched the lawsuit on Feb. 22. The case names the EIA, the Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the heads of those agencies as defendants.

The EIA confirmed that the survey has been paused in a statement:

“EIA will not enforce any requirement to file Form EIA-862 nor seek or impose any fines, penalties, or other adverse consequences based on a failure to respond to the survey through March 22, 2024.”

The agency will also sequester any data that it has collected and will refrain from using it until the same data, according to the current notice.

An entry in the case docket similarly confirms the survey pause, noting that the EIA will “take the survey down [and] there will be a notice stating there are [four] more weeks reprieve.”

Data collection concerns

Republican Congressman Tom Emmer recently raised concerns over the collection of data from crypto mining firms in a letter on Feb. 22.

He argued that the OMB could only grant the EIA’s information collection request without a comment period by demonstrating that mining is likely to cause public harm. He added:

“Bitcoin mining is not a threat to public safety. Period.”

Riot and the Texas Blockchain Council’s lawsuit relies on a similar argument, as one section of their complaint states that the emergency approval and supposed public harm are “facially absurd.”

The survey has been closely linked with the Biden administration and the Democratic party. One section of the lawsuit explicitly acknowledges this, noting that a September 2022 statement from the Biden Whitehouse specifically suggested targeting mining firms with energy limitation actions and laws.

The EIA, for its part, is concerned that Bitcoin mining could lead to increased energy consumption during high energy demand periods, including during cold weather.

The office originally aimed to collect data from 82 crypto-mining firms, and companies that did not comply could have faced $10,000 in daily fines until the survey period ended in July.

Riot Platforms and the non-profit association, the Texas Blockchain Council (TBC), have initiated legal action against the US Energy Department and associated entities, such as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), concerning their recent move to survey Bitcoin miners.

The Feb. 22 court filing showed that the miners want to halt what they deem an “unlawful emergency data collection,” arguing that:

“This is a case about sloppy government process, contrived and self-inflicted urgency, and invasive government data collection.”

Lee Bratcher, president of the TBC, said:

“It’s evident that this survey is not about grid stability, as bitcoin miners are the most flexible load on any grid, but is a targeted political effort led by figures like Elizabeth Warren.“

On Jan. 31, the EIA announced intentions to gather information on the energy consumption of US-based crypto miners. The EIA justified this survey, sanctioned by the OMB, as an emergency data collection measure, claiming that US miners accounted for approximately 2.3% of the nation’s total electricity demand in 2023.

Miners contest EIA moves.

The miners are questioning the legitimacy of this data collection process, labeling it as a haphazard and intrusive government procedure.

They alleged violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act in the application and approval processes and accused the agencies of acting “arbitrarily and capriciously” by breaching the Administrative Procedure Act.

The miners argued that the survey would harm them by forcing them to divulge confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information to EIA. As such, they want the court to restrain these agencies from collecting this information and destroy any information that might have been collected from miners.

In addition to the crypto miners’ opposition, several US lawmakers have voiced concerns over the Energy Department’s actions. Rep. Tom Emmer, House Majority Whip, has called for an explanation regarding the OMB’s utilization of emergency powers to target Bitcoin miners, emphasizing that Bitcoin mining poses no threat to public safety.

The U.S. authorities’ planned survey of Bitcoin miners’ electricity usage has drawn steep criticism from the mining community, describing it as the genesis of “Operation Chokepoint 3.0.”

Miners criticize the survey.

Riot Platforms CEO Jason Les said the survey was “politically motivated, unlawful, and discriminatory” against the miners. According to him, the survey does not serve the public interest but constitutes a political agenda targeting Bitcoin miners and their energy suppliers.

He further expressed concern that such targeting could establish a dangerous precedent and disclosed that legal options are under consideration.

“Our industry is radically transparent, and public data disproves the basis for this mandate. Bitcoin miners helped to stabilize the grid during the recent cold snap,” Les added.

Brian Morgenstern, the head of public policy at Riot Platforms, emphasized the industry’s need to unite against regulatory overreach. He suggested that the government actions might aim to obtain information about energy partners, potentially leading to pressures to cease collaboration with miners.

Meanwhile, the director of Bitcoin Today Coalition, Alex Brammer, said the survey was “egregious and needs to be met with immediate legal action” because it tries to penalize miners who fail to respond.

“They have pre-formatted delinquency notices for those companies that do not respond, which include threats of criminal and civil penalties for non-compliance including a $10,633 fine PER DAY for failure to report,” Brammer said.

Authorities justify survey

In a recent analysis, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) tried to justify the need for its survey by pointing out that U.S. miners might have consumed as much as 2.3 percent of the country’s total electricity demand last year.

“Key challenges associated with tracking cryptocurrency mining energy use include the difficulty of identifying cryptocurrency mining activity among millions of U.S. end-use customers and the dynamic nature of the crypto market, where mining assets can be moved rapidly to areas with lower electricity prices,” the agency added.

Last week, EIA revealed that it would conduct an emergency survey targeting electricity consumption among commercial cryptocurrency miners. The survey, authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), aims to gather specific details from these miners about the broader implications of cryptocurrency mining activities in the United States.

While a large majority of enterprises are adopting crypto solutions, these institutional players also recognize the challenges of adopting this new technology, according to a new report.

Crypto firm Paxos surveyed 400 executives from United States-based financial services companies with at least five million users and $50 billion in assets under management or $50 billion annual payments volume. 

The crypto firm published the results in its “2023 Enterprise Digital Asset Adoption Report,” showing that financial services firms are still deeply interested in digital assets and blockchain technology. 

According to the survey, 99% of the respondents indicated that their company is putting equal or greater focus on crypto and blockchain projects this year compared to the previous years. Paxos wrote: 

“The resilience of digital assets and blockchain technology in the face of market events, economic challenges, and a need for more regulatory clarity reflects that companies have internalized the value of the technology in the long term.”

While many companies focus on adopting the technology, the survey showed they face various barriers and challenges, with 56% of survey respondents saying implementation complexity is the largest impediment to launching a crypto solution. 

Commenting on the difficulties in crypto infrastructure, Mastercard executive Jonathan Anastasia said in the report that working with a crypto-native firm helped them. “Infrastructure is hard. We needed to look for a native player in this space with that deep expertise to bring the companies together on that journey,” Anastasia said.

Related: JPMorgan, Apollo plan for enterprise mainnet, execs reveal

Meanwhile, 51% of the respondents cited market volatility as a major hurdle to their company moving forward with crypto or blockchain projects. Furthermore, 43% cited the financial cost of implementation as a major roadblock. Despite the challenges, less than 2% of the survey respondents indicated they view a lack of belief in blockchain’s benefits as an impediment. 

Magazine: Lawmakers’ fear and doubt drives proposed crypto regulations in US