The debate is interesting. To give some context,  I come from a big Bank background where I worked for the first 10 years of my career. I have been an entrpreneuur since the age of 28 and started a fintech back n 2002 with my long standing business partner back on 2002,  before the word "fintech" was invented. I was warned by my friends in the banking industry that the reaction of the banks to what we were doing (at the time launching mobile banking technology that banks could use), would be one of watching and waiting.

The intitial reaction by the big banks would be to discredit you. This happened.

if you could get over that hurdle the banks would then look at doing it themselves, assuming of course that you had achieved a modicum of success. They would set up meetings and excite you with the prospect of doing business, take what they could and try and do it themselves. This happened.

In some instances, again based on success the banks, rather than buying the technology, would buy the company and in some cases then close it down. This happened.  (To friends of mine who launhced their own FIntechs only to either get swallowed by the big bank and get suffocated or deliberately closed)

The final scenario is that the big banks would buy the innovative technlogy from the FIntech, but as soon as this became a mainstream revenue generator, they would set a team large enough to  sink a battleship onto a project, take everything that they had learned and kick the fintech out. This happened.

The issue is not only with Starling Bank, though when we approached them we were told by a PA that Anne was much too busy and that if it was any good and worth doing they would do it themselves. Herein lies the crux. People in bug banks are being paid hansomely to brign innovative profitable products to their employee banks and supporting Fintechs is seen as failing in their jobs. Someone cynically told me that in  most banks the "No" culture prevailed. Saying no to fintechs never got anyone in trouble by challenging the risk profile of the bank, and by not taking risks or pushing boundaries, people generally stayed out of trouble and got rewarded and promoted for not making mistakes. This is a culture that advocates the NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here - and if we have not thought of it, it cannot be any good)

Then you get the forward thinking innovative banks who see that there is great value in working with reputable Fintechs. They can get quality products and services to the market very quickly, more cost effectively and often using the brand name given to the service by the Fintech. Protecting the brand of the bank in the case of failure. Using a Fintech de-risks the situation and success leads to a long standing and mutually beneficial "partnership" where the Fintech becomes a valuable asset and resource to the bank in a relationship to bring innovative products and services to the market ahead of competition. 

Many banks admit that they are not innovators and do not want to be first to market, claiming to be fast followers. Here the role of the Fintech is equally valuable in that speed to market becomes key. Working with  flexible Fintech who can customise and tailor a base offering to differentiate the product or service becomes another key driver.

There is no doubt that Banks can and do work very effectively with FIntechs and there is a massive role and benefit for the progressive insightful Banks that take advantage of the value that FIntechs bring.