#BnplGoingToZero, page-906

Cool. Not really relevant to what I posted, but my post was a bit irrelevant to the topic at large anyway - so fair enough.

Banks and non-banks can offer BNPL together independently. There is no rule that says they cannot coexist in a healthy competitive market - which is what we have seen.

The real threat to the incumbent banks, and Australian banks in particular, is the inability to offer the same innovation sooner as fintechs such as Zip can. Virtual credit cards, single use credit cards, integrated crypto and stock trading - even gifting of stocks, as is possible with Block Inc's CashApp in the US.

Australian banks took at least three years to respond with a product when Afterpay gained traction in Australia - they focused heavily at first at lobbying to try and classify them as unlicensed credit providers and when that failed, they reluctantly began to offer a pay in installments option to compete with the BNPL industry eating their breakfast.

Banks only offered BPNL as a result of competitors like Zip and Afterpay entering the market and showing some innovation in fintech - left to their own devices banks will always choose the path of least resistance and innovate as little as possible. For this reason alone, we should all be grateful for companies like Zip forcing banks to at least try to keep up and provide a wider range and better services in general - consumers are better off because of companies like Zip.

You can hate on Zip all you like, and that's fine - just accept there are people out there like me who don't hate companies like Zip.

BNPL stocks I currently hold are ZIP, SQ2 and NASDAQ:SEZL. I've been working professionally in the fintech industry since 1993. Perhaps I'm just stupid for being attracted to the recent innovation in the sector - after 31 years I wouldn't know what a good product or service looks like, right?