There are a lot of people talking about this, and I am also mixing.
Editor’s note: This article is from the WeChat public account “Kevin Investment Teahouse” ( ID: kevin_tzcg), author Kevin invests in teahouses.
Image Source: pixabay
A lot of old friends know that the most written in the teahouses in the past few years may be the topic of mutual money in the securities industry.
I have been reluctant to write similar topics. I am helpless. Recently, with the establishment of the joint venture technology subsidiary of China Gold and Tencent, many people expressed their views and personally disagree, so I can only say my own. I also welcome everyone to talk with me.
Discussion 1: Financial technology and securities industry financial technology are different issues
In the past two years, the term financial technology has always had a good reputation. The story of Goldman Sachs has also been repeatedly raised back and forth, as if the earliest transformation of technology companies, who can enter the fast lane of development.
But personally, the industry’s expectations for financial technology may be too high, and there is no small difference between “financial technology” and “financial technology in the securities industry.”
In terms of financial technology alone, it is inseparable from the various applications of A (artificial intelligence), B (blockchain), C (cloud computing), D (big data) and other technologies in the financial field. Depending on the scenario, the process of these technologies in the application process or the ability to improve the original business experience may improve the efficiency of the original business, thereby helping the application enterprise to form technical barriers or create a unique business model. Therefore, individuals do not deny that there will be huge room for development in the future of financial technology.
But this conclusion is not simply applied to the securities industry, especially the current securities industry.
Because, once you return to the realm of financial technology in the securities industry, the perspective will change from technology-based to technology. And how financial technology will be used and developed in the field of securities industry will inevitably lead to various problems. Unlike other industries, personally think –
First, financial technology cannot and cannot change the business model of brokerage firms. Because the securities industry is a highly regulated and standardized industry. In order to meet the regulatory requirements, brokers have a large number of penetrating reports that need to be reported every month; in the core aspects of commission pricing, brokers do not have full autonomy. Many innovative businesses need to be approved by the exchange or the regulatory bureau before they are launched. Pointing out these issues does not mean that I have any opinions on the current supervision. On the contrary, in the context of the current control of systemic risks in the financial sector, I personally fully understand and support this. So don’t expect to use financial technology to bring about changes in business models.
Second, financial technology in the securities industry is difficult to form unique technical barriers. The unique technical barriers are at the expense of sustained, unrewarded inputs each year. The essence of this question is: Which one will the brokers choose between “technical trade” and “trade technology”? This has nothing to do with the use of financial technology and the technology used. It is only related to the orientation and assessment cycle of the securities industry management itself. In fact, most startups may have a higher degree of freedom in this regard. For most brokers, this may not be an option. Therefore, the vast majority of the securities industry’s application in financial technology can only be tried from the perspective of front-end applications and integration of China and Taiwan.
If we can agree on the above two issues, we will find that —
The financial technology that brokerages can do is not much, and can only be limited to a limited number of aspects such as customer experience and operational efficiency.
When limited to these categories, you will find that these areas cannot exist independently of the business. There is no doubt that financial technology can certainly improve the efficiency of business transformation. But what really affects the business landscape may be extraordinary strength. It may be a visionary vision. It may be a reasonable mechanism, but it is impossible to rely solely on technology itself.
For example, the technical efficiency is like the F1 engine. Although a good engine can give the driver a greater advantage, but the real impact on the outcome of the game depends on the driver’s own ability, experience and judgment. The importance of the team.
Discussion 2: In the securities industry, is the product determining the customer or the customer determining the product?
If the discussion of the first question is still somewhat empty, then the second question can be said to be the question of the soul of all the securities industry mutual gold people.
In my opinion, this is also the biggest difference between the mutual benefit of the securities industry and the Internet companies –
For Internet companies, it is natural that products determine customers. Enterprises rely on distinctive productsCount to attract target customers. Then, after the target customer group is used, various opinions are put forward and the product details are continuously optimized. The two interact to form a positive loop.
But for the securities industry, the whole process is actually the reverse, that is, the customer decides the product. Because, on the one hand, for brokers, no matter how many customers can not give up; on the other hand, most customers also choose the broker first, and then use the corresponding App.
So, for the app of the securities industry, the service needs of “accepting” existing customers must be placed at a higher priority. But because of this, it is difficult for products and customers to form a positive cycle against Internet companies with limited resources.
On the one hand, due to the lack of unified cognition and preference of the customer base, customer needs vary widely, so the opinions on the platform are naturally varied and endless;
On the other hand, in recent years, various types of innovative businesses have followed, and the nodes must be on the line.
To be honest, for most brokers, the ability to cope with these problems is already at a medium-to-high level, but this is precisely the crux of why the bond industry is getting harder and harder.
They came into being with the innovation of the Internet, carrying the expectations of the company’s transformation, but the reality has already made them exhausted. In this way, one side is a short-term subversive expectation, and the other side of the burden of reality and the big pit of history will eventually fall.
But can you say that this is all wrong?
If you want to build a so-called Internet-style positive cycle, guarantee the accuracy of the customer base, give up the stock of customers, and go directly to the new market, in my opinion, it is undoubtedly to give up their own “Basic disk” < /strong>.
In the market for stock games, you can attack, but only if you keep your basics. There is a huge stock of customers who don’t care or service, but a stricter shackle in the set, and the ability of the Internet company to die from the product manager. What is unwise, this is unwise.
So, although it is very boring, but because the customer decides the logic of the product, the positioning of APP “acceptance” is the first thing that must be recognized, and it needs to be continued. It must be made more customers can be Covered by the platform. This may be more important than the user thinking of the industry over the years. Although in terms of implementation difficulty, the difficulty of inventory activation and coverage will be more difficult than simply acquiring a new user.
However, I want to continue to say that in addition to the “acceptance” of the mutual fund of the securities industry, there is nothing to do. On the basis of doing a good job of functioning, it is actually possible to form a second link similar to the Internet side, that is, re-engineering products.The logic of the household.
A good product design will inevitably bring three aspects of value, one is to create a scene, the other is to guide demand, and the third is to build trust. Under the premise of realizing the basic services of the existing customer base, it is not completely impossible to find a relatively common link based on the new service link.
Although it is not subversive, it can at least go down and affect the behavioral decisions of some people.
This is just a spiral process, that is, the process of determining B (product) from A (customer) and A’ (customer’) from B (product).
So, back to the topic of financial technology, if you only use the app of the securities industry, personally think that for most brokers, defensive counterattack is the best strategy at the moment, first to secure the basic disk of their own. Then it is to find your own offensive means. Of course, there are many ways to attack, either online or offline.
Accurately speaking, it should be the way to undertake, empower, and create a three-step walk.
III. Limitations and Directions of the Financial Technology of the Securities Industry
The last question is about the algorithm recommendation.
The application of financial technology in the retail business of the securities industry is inherently limited, and algorithm recommendations can certainly be counted, and should be one of the most important application directions.
With the gradual exhaustion of new traffic, in order to achieve better user stickiness and revenue conversion, many Internet apps have introduced algorithm recommendation systems, such as music apps, shopping apps, information apps, etc. It also played a good effect.
So many brokerages have made some attempts in this regard in recent years, such as intelligent information push, smart product recommendation, etc., but the final result may not be satisfactory.
Why is there a problem with the model that works in the Internet, when it is copied to the securities or financial industry?
I want to share my thoughts and observations with this entry point.
If the technical architecture alone, the most streamlined algorithm recommendation system requires at least the underlying labeling system and the DMP digital marketing platform. Among them, the label system is responsible for labeling customers and services, while the DMP platform is responsible for the implementation of algorithm strategies and evaluation of conversion effects.
A set of algorithm recommendation systems are inseparable from tags and algorithms. However, it cannot be said that there is a tag and algorithm platform, which is recommended by the algorithm.
Algorithm recommendation belongs to the category of precision marketing, and the premise of precision marketing is first of all marketing. According to Kotler’s definition of marketing “4P”, it should contain at least four aspects:Products, channels, prices and promotions.
So, if you look at smart messaging and smart products to recommend two smart apps from a marketing perspective, you might be able to spot the problem.
Yes, the premise of marketing is the product. The algorithm only improves the efficiency and coverage of product recommendations.
The Music App will definitely purchase a sufficient amount of copyrighted music before exploring the precise marketing. This is the foundation of the music app.
The shopping app will focus on the quality of goods and logistics control before exploring precision marketing. This is the foundation of the shopping app.
Information App will definitely find ways to solve the supply and review mechanism of high-quality content before exploring accurate marketing. This is the foundation of the information app.
Looking at the attempt of brokerage apps in the field of precision marketing-
In terms of information, in order to avoid compliance problems, brokerage information is generally procured from various suppliers, and then partially combined with their own unique information.
In terms of products, in order to ensure the diversity of recommendations, the products that brokers use to make algorithm recommendations are generally public funds with full sales.
Obviously, in the product, on the fundamental issue of this marketing, the brokerage is actually absent. Therefore, the effect of the final algorithm recommendation is generally normal.
After further discussion, any service can exist, the premise must be to create unique value for the user.
The value of a music app is that it always helps the user find the music he wants to listen to.
The value of a shopping app is that it always helps users find items that meet their needs and price preferences.
The value of the information app is that it always provides users with preferences, interesting information, and helps them fill up the fragmentation time.
So, in the final analysis, algorithmic recommendation is just an efficiency tool, and the definition of a product needs to be defined by the service itself.
Returning, what is the service provided by the brokerage app?
Internet App loves to talk about experience because most of the areas they cut into are simple and standardized services, and users can be tangible in the value of the service. In such a competitive environment, the better the natural experience, the fullness of the customerThe higher the will.
But the brokerage app also talks about the experience, it is necessary to have the necessary premise. It’s not that the experience is not important, but before that you need to confirm that the definition of the product and service has been completed.
Not to mention the financial retail industry and the general retail industry are not exactly the same. For the retail business, as long as the service attitude is good, the delivery does not roll over, and the customer’s approval can be obtained with great probability. But for the financial retail industry, we must also consider the long-term profit and loss of customers and whether they can really solve the actual problem. (Because of the limited space, this part of the thinking I will separately find opportunities to talk again)
For example, suppose there are two applications. An interface is very simple, but it can really bring enough value to investors’ investment; an interface is very beautiful and cool, but investors can only get some functions that are not painful and itching; the result must be that one can really The platform to solve customer problems can be laughed at the end.
Customers come to the securities company to see the information really is to find information on the whole market? Is it really to kill time? Does the customer really accept the financial product recommendation recommended by the algorithm?
So, many problems seem to be the business of the brokerage app. The essence is to see what the brokers are providing to them, and whether they have a clear understanding.
In this respect, although it is inseparable from the support of financial technology, it has never been a technical issue.
Conclusion
From Internet finance to financial technology, the industry has been discussing.
There is no doubt that financial technology has its ambitious development prospects. But he also has his limitations, especially in the securities industry.
I always believe that financial technology in the securities industry has never been a technical issue, but a business issue and a strategic issue.
The Internet talks about the experience, talks about black technology, but also talks about landing, speaking and pushing, and talking about process reengineering. When you can’t turn to the securities industry, you only talk about experience and black technology, not to mention landing, push and process reengineering.
The real difficulties are actually in these aspects. At least in the moment, I don’t think that the industry may have a technical transition in this respect. It’s nothing more than who is better and deeper, who can really put the coupons. The industry’s own products and services are well defined.
The application of all means is to solve the customer’s problem and create value for the customer, instead of making a head and feeling that the customer may need it.
So, back to the beginning of the topic, for the joint venture between Zhongjin and Tencent, it’s really worth discussing –
Why is Sinopec and Tencent working together, not others?
What is the price paid by both parties for this? Who directly contributed to this?
What resources can the subsidiaries receive from their respective parent companies?
Not what technology they will use later, will it be a standalone platform?
So, look, this is actually a business issue and a strategic issue.