The Digitalization of Financial

Markets
The Socioeconomic Impact of Financial
Technologies

Edited by
Adam Marszk and Ewa Lechman

First published 2021

ISBN: 978-0-367-55834-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-55840-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-09535-4 (ebk)

Chapter 10
Challenger bank as a new digital form
of providing financial services to retail
customers in the EU Internal Market: The
case of Revolut
michał polasik, paweł widawski and andrzej lis
Funder:
Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu

(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003095354-5

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3957643

10 Challenger bank as a new digital
form of providing financial
services to retail customers
in the EU internal market
The case of Revolut
Michał Polasik, Paweł Widawski and Andrzej Lis

Introduction
Digital transformation has resulted in redefinition of business models and
retail services in the financial sector. The emergence of challenger banks is
found to be one of the manifestations of this transformation and an example of
a financial innovation. ‘Challenger banks’ are banks or FinTech, non-banking
start-ups, the operations of which are based on digital technologies and which
challenge big, traditional banks. It is a new approach to provide financial ser-
vices, where an agile organization and new technologies are the key success
factors. Due to branchless and often mobile operations, challenger banks are
focused on offering their customers better user experience and attractive pric-
ing for selected financial services. Challenger banks are established in many
European countries, e.g., Revolut and Monzo in the United Kingdom, N26 in
Germany, Golden Sand Bank in Gibraltar, Aion in Belgium. Providing invest-
ment products to mass retail customers is a significant feature differentiating
challenger banks from traditional banking institutions. An inclusive and sim-
ple formula of offering those products via mobile apps enables a numerous
group of customers to invest in financial assets in a comfortable and compre-
hensible way. Nevertheless, provision of such an offer is a challenge requiring
an innovative business model obeying strict legal regulations.
Due to their relative novelty, innovations in business models of chal-
lenger banks have not been studied thoroughly, yet. The topic has been
discussed in only a handful of studies. Schepinin and Bataev (2019) and
Bataev (2019) estimate efficiency of such organizations based on the number
of their clients and operations performed by them. Cable (2014), in his anal-
ysis of the UK banking industry, notices growing intensity of competition due
to the emergence of challenger banks. Bruggink and Coehlo (2020) observe
the role of BNI Europa in servicing niche customers in some segments of
the Portuguese market. Sibanda et al. (2020) employ a questionnaire sur-
vey in the context of the United Arab Emirates banking sector to analyze
DOI: 10.4324/9781003095354-10
176 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
the ‘impact of digital technology, via Fin-Tech challenger banks on banks’
business models’. Bataev et al. (2019) study development of a Russia-based
Tinkoff Bank as well as they compare and contrast its profitability, return
on assets and the long-term capital against traditional banking institutions.
An initial review of literature points out that research on challenger
banks has been limited. Thus, taking into account the identified research
gap, the aim of the study is to explore the operations of challenger banks
and their new digital approaches to provide banking and investment ser-
vices to retail customers in the EU Internal Market as an innovation in
the financial market. Revolut, the most recognized challenger bank, which
succeeded in attracting 12 million customers until 2020, is used as a unit of
the single case study analysis.
The study combines a narrative literature review in its theoretical part
with a single case study methodology in the empirical part. Due to a limited
number of publications related to challenger banks, we decided to give up
a systematic literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003) and employ a narrative
review of refereed and non-refereed publications, in spite of limitations of
this methodology. Nevertheless, as highlighted by Cook et al. (1997), narra-
tive reviews are useful for describing development of an issue, especially if a
research field is new and its scientific output is limited in number. Moreover,
our literature review is embedded in a wider context of more advanced and
abundant research on FinTech development (Gomber et al., 2018; Milian
et al., 2019). The case study methodology (Myers, 2010; Patton & Appelbaum,
2003; Rowley, 2002) is used as a framework to analyze empirical data. The
remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: firstly, digital innova-
tions in the financial sector are discussed to provide the theoretical back-
ground for the study; secondly, the method of the study is explained; thirdly,
Revolut’s innovative services in the financial market and their legal formula
are analyzed and finally, the findings from analysis are discussed.

Digital innovations in the financial sector

Digital technologies and new business models in the financial sector

Digitalization in the economy turned out to be a crucial breakthrough.
These changes are referred to as the modern industrial revolution and are a
part of the concept of Industry 4.0 which ‘is based on the creation of value
through the close interaction of all economic agents through digitaliza-
tion’ (Bilan et al., 2019, p. 70). Information and communication technol-
ogies (ICTs) completely change business models and the traditional way
of providing financial services as well. This process is particularly visible
in financial markets, which can be easily digitalized due to the intangible
features of their products. Thus, the emergence of the ‘FinTech’ expres-
sion, which according to Philippon (2017) ‘covers digital innovations and
technology-enabled business model innovations in the financial sector’.
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 177
Traditional banking, associated with physical bank branches, is being
increasingly replaced by e-banking (Nsouli & Schaechter, 2002). Within the
e-finance business, which refers to forms of financial services performed
with the use of electronic communication channels, many business mod-
els have emerged in the 1990s. They included the process of services auto-
mation and development of self-service interfaces, such as online banking,
online brokerage services and even the first attempts of mobile banking and
mobile payments (Gomber et al., 2018). The first important new business
model – the Internet-only bank – was aimed to radically reduce fixed costs
by resigning from owning the branches and taking advantage of the econo-
mies of scale (DeYoung et al., 2007). The low price strategy attracted mass
customers, and the transaction volume generated the profit. In brokerage
services, an online access enabled investors to quickly react to the changes
in financial markets and to reduce commissions from transactions. This
model was also gradually adapted to traditional banks and led to reducing
the number of physical branches of banks and other traditional institutions,
resulting in improvement of financial results (Akhisar et al., 2015; Hernando
& Nieto, 2007).
New types of technologies contribute to the development of financial
innovations. The crucial are blockchain- and distributed ledger technology
(DLT)-based solutions, in particular cryptocurrencies (Polasik et al., 2016),
but also new document storage and payment services, new solutions for
creditworthiness research based on artificial intelligence, InsurTech and
improvements in the regulatory requirements process – RegTech (Butor-
Keler & Polasik, 2020). Through the years, mobile and other ICTs have been
developed, which led to merging different services as well as creating new
business models. The main direction in changing business models was the
disintermediation and reintermediation of the financial services value chain
(Schmidt et al., 1999; Sibanda et al., 2020). New FinTech business models
vary and might include many different elements, such as crowdfunding,
Person-2-Person (P2P) lending platforms, wealth management automation,
robo-advisors mechanisms and mobile trading (brokerage) platforms (Lee
& Shin, 2018). The latter solution is the most important for the study as it
enables customers to make direct investments in financial assets, including
alternative investments.

Socio-economic impact of digital finance

innovations and financial inclusion
An important aspect of the development of new technologies and prod-
ucts is also strengthening the financial inclusion of society (Sahay et al.,
2020). ‘Mobile money’ services offered in developing economies (Lashitew
et al., 2019), where the mobile phone operators provide customers with basic
banking services, e.g., M-PESA in Kenya, may be an example of inclusive
innovations (Van Hove & Dubus, 2019). Another example of changes in the
178 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
banking sector, resulting from financial innovations, is the emergence and
development of challenger banks. As of 2020, as reported by International
Money Fund (Sahay et al., 2020), digital finance has a significant impact on
financial inclusion. It is also associated with a higher GDP growth in a
country. It is worth noticing, that financial inclusion processes changed due
to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The abovementioned report suggests
that the digital financial inclusion might have an important role in recov-
ering from both the economic as well as social crisis (Sahay et al., 2020).
It might be due to the fact, that, as presented in a World Bank research
from 2017 (Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2018), ‘mobile money services (…) can
help improve people’s income earning potential and thus reduce poverty’.
The saving and investing inclusion remains an important issue also in the
European Union (EU) countries (Korzeniowska & Huterska, 2020). The
need for financial inclusion applies also to the current sanitary regimes as
digital finance services enable dealing with financial matters without the
need of a physical contact with a representative of a given financial institu-
tion. As noted by Financial Stability Board (2017), in the end, digital finan-
cial innovations might translate into a greater efficiency and transparency
of services offered to customers. New entities on the market mean higher
competition, which creates new ways for financial inclusion and economic
growth, especially in developing economies.
Digital finance innovations have also an impact on the retail investors’
accessibility to trading services, previously reserved (due to the high entry
threshold) for a selected part of this group (Musabegović et al., 2019). Easier
access for small investors to the investment offer may also affect the dif-
ferent investment patterns used by such persons compared to professional
investors. The pioneer in this market segment was Robinhood Brokerage
established in 2013, which introduced the ‘investing for everyone’ model
(Robinhood, 2021). The FinTech entrants increase also the access to many
types of alternative investments, such as gold certificates and cryptocurren-
cies. The development of mobile-based market offer directed to small inves-
tors is resulting in democratization of financial markets (Palladino, 2019).

Challenger banking
In our paper, we define challenger banks as banks or FinTech, non-banking
start-ups, the operations of which are based on digital technologies and
which challenge big, traditional banks. It is a new approach to provide finan-
cial services, where an agile organization and new technologies are the key
success factors. These companies are focused on providing their customers
with excellent user experience and they target their offerings at young peo-
ple, mainly of those of the generation of millennials. In the literature, chal-
lenger banks are labelled also as ‘mobile-only banks’ or ‘neobanks’ (Gomber
et al., 2018; Hopkinson et al., 2019), to highlight their radical approach to
reject traditional distribution channels such as: branches, phone banking or
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 179
even WWW transaction applications. Using their smartphones, customers
are able not only to set up an account but also to make a wide array of other
available financial operations (Capgemini & Efma, 2020).
Challenger banks are usually established as new entities without an exten-
sive organizational structure. The basis for the functioning of challenger
banks is constituted by the IT department, which ‘occupies up to 80% of the
entire institution, and therefore, introducing and developing this form of
credit organization can be presented as an IT-project’ (Schepinin & Bataev,
2019, p. 2). Challenger banks usually use a monthly subscription model that
includes a selected service package.
Burdened neither with legacy systems nor inertia of employees accus-
tomed to traditional banking, challenger banks are good at creating inno-
vations and achieving cost-effectiveness. In consequence, they can provide
customers with speed services at competitive prices, which are also available
in cross-border options. Potential to increase competitiveness and challeng-
ing the traditional banking sector is an essential aspect of their operations.
Thus, challenger banks are perceived as market disrupters (Lu, 2017).
Nowadays, bank customers are increasingly focused on the convenience
and speed of transactions. Good customer experience is one of the charac-
teristic elements of the functioning of challenger banks. As a result of the
personalization of services and use of information technology, this type of
bank has been consistently gaining popularity. According to the FT Partners
Research report The Rise of Challenger Banks. Are the Apps Taking Over?
(2020), first challenger banks began to emerge in Europe after the 2008 crisis
(Lu, 2017), and this trend began to develop around the world. In the opin-
ion of Schepinin and Bataev (2019), the development of challenger banks
took place somewhat later, that is, in 2014 in the United Kingdom. What
is important, the United Kingdom remains a leading European center in
the development of financial innovations and FinTech (Polasik et al., 2020),
including challenger banks.

Legal antecedents of new business models in the financial sector

The issue of a ‘challenger bank’ has not yet been thoroughly analyzed in the
legal literature. However, we can find studies devoted to the broadly under-
stood legal framework of financial innovation (FinTech), including those
related to payment services. For instance, Gurrea-Martínez and Remolina
(Gurrea-Martínez & Remolina, n.d.) explore the most common regulatory
strategies used by financial regulators around the world to address the
challenges generated by the rise of FinTech. According to Khiaonarong
and Goh (2020), regulatory approaches and their legal foundations need
to augment entity-based regulation with increasing focus on activities and
risks as the market structure changes. On the other hand, there are studies
dedicated to specific phenomena occurring in the activities of challenger
banks. Romanova et al. (2018) study the impact of the Revised Payment
180 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
Services Directive (PSD2) on competitiveness of the financial sector.
Remolina (2019) explains the open banking and BaaS foundations and what
they exactly entail. The author also explores the benefits and risks of this
interaction between financial institutions and third parties for the financial
services industry and analyses from the comparative perspective different
approaches that the financial, data privacy and competition regulators have
implemented to boost the open banking phenomenon.
In regard to organizational efficiency, the phenomenon of regulatory arbi-
trage is used, which results in conducting cross-border activity within the EU
on the basis of licenses issued in the Member States with favorable condi-
tions for conducting operations and a friendly financial supervisory author-
ity (Houston et al., 2012). In combination with a decentralized organizational
structure, such a solution ensures a high level of cost competitiveness.
In regard to fractional shares trading, it should be mentioned as an exam-
ple of legal innovation in investment services. In general, it is not a new legal
institution/solution in securities law in a number of common law and civil
law jurisdictions, therefore there is comprehensive legal literature in this
field (Roberts, 1959). But fractional shares trading as a new phenomenon
still demands in-depth analyses at the level of national legal systems.
In regard to cryptocurrency, Nabilou (2019) proposes a number of
detailed policy recommendations for regulatory intervention in the cryp-
tocurrency ecosystem. In the context of the EU regulatory framework,
Nahorniak and Leonova (2016) investigate cryptocurrency, its legal basis
in the EU, concluding that the lack of legal foundation of cryptocurrencies
exists and proves the necessity of adopting the EU regulation. In September
2020, European Commission adopted legislative proposals on crypto-
assets regulation (Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on Markets in Crypto-assets, and amending Directive (EU)
2019/1937) (MICA). MICA proposes rules to regulate stablecoins (crypto-
asset type) as well as sets out the provisions on authorization and operating
conditions of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs).

Method of study
To explore financial innovations introduced by challenger banks, we
employed the case study methodology, which is increasingly used in highly
contextualized studies (Lis, 2018). The study process was structured in
accordance with a five-step model including (Rowley, 2002; Yin, 2010):
(i) definition of contextualized study questions, (ii) selection of the case and
internal sampling, (iii) data collection, (iv) data analysis and discussion,
(v) report production.
The study was focused on the following research questions: (i) What
product innovations have been implemented by Revolut in regard to the
customers’ access to financial markets? (ii) How does Revolut compete with
other challenger banks and traditional financial institutions? (iii) What
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 181
are socio-economic consequences of innovations introduced by challenger
banks? (iv) What is the legal formula of Revolut’s operations?
Revolut was chosen as a unit of analysis for this descriptive and explora-
tory single case study analysis as it is the most recognized challenger bank,
which succeeded in attracting more than 12 million customers at the end of
2020. The start-up was founded in 2015 in the United Kingdom by Nikolay
Storonsky and Vlad Yatsenko. Revolut became famous for its quick and
cheap currency exchange, thus meeting customer expectations. In 2018,
Revolut became authorized Electronic Money Institution under number
08804411 (Financial Conduct Authority, 2021). In connection with Brexit,
in 2020 Revolut obtained a banking license in Lithuania. At the end of 2018,
Revolut operated in over 44 countries and enabled customers to make trans-
fers in over 30 currencies, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. Single case
study methodology provided an opportunity to explore thoroughly the case
and its context as well as to identify the relationships used to formulate
propositions for further studies.
In order to triangulate data collection methods, we used three following
sources of data: (i) review of financial reports and other information publicly
disclosed by Revolut; (ii) analysis of the Revolut’s offering, compared with
the offers of selected market competitors; (iii) expert interviews. Expert opin-
ions for analysis were collected from qualitative structured interviews with
a representative of the company under the study, its customers and FinTech
experts. Due to the restrictions caused by the pandemic of COVID-19,
the videoconference or telephone interview techniques were employed to
collect the observations and insights of the respondents. Interviews were
conducted in September of 2020. We employed the following techniques
and mechanisms in order to ensure quality of the study and its appropri-
ate validity: (i) construct validity: collecting data from diverse sources and
revising the study report by key respondents; (ii) internal validity: pattern
matching and explanation building; (iii) external validity: referring to theo-
retical assumptions; (iv) reliability: study protocol and database (cf. Rowley,
2002; Yin, 2010).

Revolut’s innovations for financial markets

Product innovations and their mechanisms

Revolut is branchless and entirely digital and mobile, which enables it to
provide services to a wide audience in many European countries. All the
services are provided online via a mobile application. As a new and com-
pletely online business, the company is not burdened with old legacy systems
and servicing unattractive products or channels. As indicated by the inter-
viewed experts, comparing to traditional banks and other challenger banks,
Revolut’s strategy is characterized by a significant share of cross-border ser-
vices in relation to its size and revenues.
182 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
Challenger banks in various areas of their activity apply technologi-
cal, business and legal solutions that increase their product innovation or
organizational effectiveness. Product innovations include, for instance, pro-
active implementation of open banking solutions based on the PSD2 direc-
tive. Payment services are the core of Revolute offer value proposition. It
includes a source of earnings of Revolut – as a card issuer – i.e. interchange
fees charged on merchants under international payment card schemes
(Górka, 2018, pp. 14–19).
Moreover, other product innovations can be identified among investment
products offered by Revolut, including:

• Investment brokerage solutions based on the concept of ‘fractional

share investing/trading’.
• Digital currencies trading platform.
• Commodity trading, including gold.

Fractional shares mechanisms offer an opportunity to invest in a part of a

single stock, which allows customers to invest in stocks of high price and
therefore allows even low-income customers to broaden their portfolio.
The fractional shares scheme, provided by Revolut’s subsidiary, i.e. Revolut
Trading Ltd. Fractional Shares, is integrated with the online platform ena-
bling even small investors to exercise their voting and dividend rights.
Crypto-currency trading platforms are integrated with the Revolut appli-
cation and provide customer friendly mechanisms for crypto-assets invest-
ment. Their functionality is limited in comparison to trading platforms for
crypto-assets that provide private wallets (cryptocurrency accounts) allow-
ing to send or receive crypto-assets from external wallets. Revolut offers a
service, in which customer’s cryptocurrency is stored by Revolut as an agent
in the virtual account that also holds cryptocurrencies for other Revolut’s
customers. In consequence, it can be considered that a customer holds not a
cryptocurrency but a financial instrument that creates beneficial right to the
cryptocurrency. This model creates higher compliance security for Revolut
as the institution is less exposed to a number of risks, including money
laundering, which is one of the main challenges for regular cryptocurrency
exchange platforms.
Revolut offers services of exchanging e-money or cryptocurrencies into
precious metals (e.g., gold and silver) for investment purposes. The precious
metals held by Revolut’s users are backed by real precious metals held in a
secure third-party financial institution. This activity is not regulated. Most
of the traditional banks do not offer this service.
Revolut focuses its operations on selected market niches, instead of
providing a full scope of banking and investment services. Nevertheless,
the delivered products are well designed. It seems that the high quality of
user experience, often indicated as a benchmark for the industry thanks
to its excellent ease of use and simplicity, constitutes another source of
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 183
competitive advantage of Revolut (Deloitte, 2020). Although, some experts
also noticed potential inconveniences for customers such as lack of possibil-
ity to have contracts in languages other than English or a lower level of legal
security as Revolut’s selected services are not always covered by national
banks guarantee funds (e.g., in Poland).

Market strategy
The primary market target audiences of Revolut are young customers (mil-
lennials), who are active users of mobile technologies and frequent travelers
or frequent online shoppers. For some young customers Revolut may be a
bank of the first choice. Nevertheless, for the majority of customers, and
especially those more demanding customers, it is usually a secondary bank
that serves them with products not available in local traditional banks.
Revolut started servicing small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) busi-
ness customers, but this segment remains the secondary audience.
It is worth noticing that easiness of using Revolut’s services with smart-
phones as well as affordable prices are essential enhancers of financial inclu-
siveness. Nevertheless, this effect is limited only to the digitally skilled
customers, who still do not use the services of traditional banks. The inclu-
siveness effect is the most visible in the case of investment products, which
enable customers to have an easier and cheaper access to financial markets.
The analysis of Revolut’s offering and opinions of the interviewed experts
indicate that the company employs the ‘freemium’ pricing model, i.e. it
offers a free of charge basic package of services while going beyond basic
limits is paid or it requires service upgrading. The experts highlight that
additional charges for exceeding limits are relatively low and transparent
for customers. Revolut offers three types of packages: Standard (free of
charge), Premium (6.99 GBP per month) and Metal (12.99 GBP packages).
The comparison of the investment offerings of Revolut, other challenger
banks and traditional financial institutions is presented in Table 10.1.
The majority of challenger banks offer basic banking services such as: a
current account, a foreign currency account, a debit card for the account.
Some of them include in their offers savings products, e.g., safes or rounding
the ends of amounts. Few challenger banks offer investment products such
as: ETFs or buying shares (e.g., Aion, 2020; Vivid, 2020).
Compared to other institutions providing financial services, Revolut
stands out of the crowd with its unique investment offer and user-friendly
interface. These characteristics result in the number of more than 10 million
downloaded applications and a very high assessment by users of the Google
Play shop (4.7/5) (Google Play, 2021). Revolut’s customers are offered unique
services, mostly connected to investing in financial markets, e.g., stock trad-
ing in a fractional way, including the US stock exchanges (New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) and National Association Securities Dealers Automated
Quotations (NASDAQ)) quoting global IT companies. Customer-friendly
184 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
Table 10.1 C
 omparison of the Revolut’s offer to other challenger banks and
traditional financial institutions

Revolut Other challenger banks Traditional institutions

Banking application
Simple and intuitive Simple and intuitive Technical and subject
(Arslanian & Fischer, 2019) Opening a bank account matter knowledge required
No expert knowledge required in less than 5 minutes The majority of traditional
for buying investment (Deloitte, 2020) institutions do not offer a
products bank account and an
investment account on
one platform
Investment offer
Broad investment offer in shares The offer of the majority Broad investment offer in
of more than 750 companies of challenger banks brokerage houses
Possible investments from limited to savings Limitations in buying
1 USD products shares of foreign
Some challenger banks, companies
e.g., Aion Bank, offer No possibilities of
ETF funds fractional shares investing
Customers may invest in Poland
from 100 euro (Aion,
2020)
Buying and exchanging cryptocurrencies
Possibility of buying and Numerous challenger Lack of possibility of
exchanging of many banks, e.g., Monzo, buying and exchanging
cryptocurrencies, e.g., Bitcoin, N26, Monese, have no cryptocurrencies
Ether, Litecoin etc. Customers option of buying and Moreover, as indicated by
can exchange between exchanging Marszałek (2019, p. 116):
cryptocurrencies and several cryptocurrencies in ‘Lloyds Banking Group
fiat currencies (Revolut, 2020) their offers and Virgin Money apply a
The British challenger purchase ban of
Ziglu is the exception cryptocurrencies with the
(Stevens, 2020) use of credit cards (like
American JP Morgan
Chase and Citigroup’
Costs of investment transactions
Fees based on the subscription Subscription model, Multi-component fees and
model depending on the commissions, e.g., for
Depending on the package, package and individual account management,
customers are allowed to from offer of challenger making transactions,
3 free transactions to unlimited banks safekeeping of securities
stock exchange transactions For example, Aion Bank Investments in foreign
The cost of transactions beyond charges no investment markets may be charged
the limit is around 1 EUR fees and commissions with commission for
(Poland – 4 PLN, the UK – 1 (Aion, 2020) orders settled in a foreign
GBP, Eurozone countries – 1 currency
EUR) and yearly fee 0.01% of
the market value at the end of
the purchase (Revolut, 2021b)
Investing in Revolut’s shares is
free of charge and unlimited,
regardless of a package
(Revolut, 2021a)
Source: own study.
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 185
and interesting alternative investment offers should be mentioned, cover-
ing cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) and commodities, e.g., gold. In the long
term, it might be an option for Revolut to widen the scope of provided ser-
vices. In the case of a typical retail customer, Revolut provides an inclusive
offer for the above investment products.

Legal formula of Revolut’s operations

Revolut operates across the EU on the basis of the EU passporting system
enabling the provision of financial services throughout the EU on the basis
of authorization granted in any EU or European Econocmic Area (EEA)
state. The single passport regime is an emanation of the freedom to pro-
vide services and a key legal foundation that allows Revolut for cross-border
activity and substantial reduction of regulatory and compliance costs.
Currently, customers from various Member States are served by various
companies of the Revolut Group (Revolut Payments UAB, Revolut Bank
UAB, Revolut Ltd., Revolut Trading Ltd.). From the legal point of view,
the key service provided by the company is a payment account that holds
electronic money. This legal concept is also applied in the case of the com-
pany operating under a banking license (Revolut Bank UAB). The custom-
ers of Revolut Bank have at least two parallel accounts (bank account and
e-money account). The first one, a bank account, is for deposit-taking pur-
poses. The second one is an e-money account which is used for payments as
transfers to and from Revolut accounts are being made in electronic money.
Particularly noteworthy is the license of a specialized bank held by
Revolut Bank UAB. The license of a specialized bank was introduced into
the Lithuanian law in 2017. It is a unique concept in the EU jurisdictions.
Originally designed to implement the credit union reform, currently this
type of license serves as a basis for creating a more favorable regulatory
environment, in which minimum capital requirements are much lower than
in a traditional bank (EUR 1 million compared to EUR 5 million) and
what is crucial a specialized bank license is considered as a credit institu-
tion and can benefit from the EU passporting regime1. Therefore, it enables
Revolut to have an access to markets across the EU Member States and to
significantly reduce operational costs. This approach is also optimal in the
context of Brexit, which is currently the biggest regulatory challenge for
Revolut. The issue is transfer of the customers from the UK jurisdiction to
the Lithuanian one, which was confirmed by one of the experts in interview.
Regarding investment services, customers have contractual relations with
Revolut Trading Ltd., which does not hold an investment license. Revolut
Trading Ltd. has the status of an Appointed Representative and a Tied
Agent from the investment firm Sapia Partners LLP, which is authorized for
advising, arranging and managing investments. It remains fully and uncon-
ditionally responsible for any action or omission on the part of the tied
agent when acting on behalf of the investment firm. Orders are transmitted
from Revolut Trading via Sepia Partners LLP to the Third Party Broker
186 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
(DriveWealth LCC registered in USA) responsible for execution. In invest-
ment services, Revolut adopted fractional shares, which allows its custom-
ers to buy less than one share for the minimum value of 1 EUR.
The company’s regulatory strategy of carrying out different activities by
different entities (authorized in different jurisdictions) and serving clients
in different countries by different companies seems to be effective. However,
from the customer’s point of view, this approach may be less beneficial.
A client enters a legal relationship with a foreign entity, the operations of
which are based on the foreign law (British or Lithuanian). Moreover, the
text of the contract is written in a foreign language (i.e. English). The place of
out-of-court dispute resolution is also a foreign entity (Bank of Lithuania).
One of the experts noted that customers in most cases are not aware, which
entity they enter a relationship with, whether it is a bank or an electronic
money institution and what is a jurisdiction of this entity. In addition, cus-
tomers funds are protected by the Lithuanian bank guarantee fund, which
in case of insolvency of the company of this scale might not be efficient due
to its size connected with the size of the banking sector. This is confirmed
by interviews with experts. One of the experts indicated that provision of
crypto services (services that allow customers to buy, sell, receive or spend
cryptocurrency) by Revolut creates substantial risks, due to the regulatory
uncertainty and differences in approaches in specific Member States as legal
frameworks of provision of those services are not harmonized in the EU.
The same applies to trading of commodities.

Discussion
Digitalization and technological innovations in the financial services mar-
ket made it possible not only to save resources, accelerate processes, reduce
costs and reduce process irregularities but above all to build competitive
advantages (Bataev et al., 2019; Gomber et al., 2018). New types of financial
institutions continue to emerge and banking itself is undergoing a transfor-
mation (Galazova & Magomaeva, 2019). At the same time, new technolo-
gies and process automation open up opportunities for the development of
products. Financial services become tailor-made for clients. New, mobile
distribution channels not only supplement but start marginalizing tradi-
tional channels (Aldiabat et al., 2019). Mobile technologies enhance finan-
cial inclusion (Sahay et al., 2020). The following factors contribute to the
changes in the way financial services: digitalization, constant access to infor-
mation, increased knowledge, globalization, convenience, speed of transac-
tions, saving of funds and the use of new information and communication
technologies by customers (Schepinin & Bataev, 2019). The COVID-19
pandemic, resulting in the need for social distancing, is a new factor stim-
ulating digital transformation of financial services, both at the side of cus-
tomers and financial institutions (Sahay et al., 2020).
Traditional financial institutions watch carefully the new entrants to the
market. Nevertheless, their infrastructure and the management structure
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 187
impede the implementation of innovations (Kasiewicz, 2018). This observa-
tion is confirmed by Lu (2017), who claims that new challenger banks benefit
from lack of historical legacy. Challenger banks do not need branches to
provide their services. The business models of challenger banks are simple,
based on up-to-date solutions and IT infrastructure (Lu, 2017).
Revolut knowingly selected market niches, where customers’ needs were
not properly satisfied. Initially, it was currency exchange for travelers, which
enabled the company to become one of the leaders of the pan-European
market of financial services. Then, Revolut introduced significant innova-
tions to both traditional and alternative investment products, offered with
the use of a mobile application. Revolut was one of the first challenger banks
to provide investment services consisting of stock and commodity trading.
Thanks to this solution of fractional shares, investment services become
more accessible to citizens with low levels of savings. What makes Revolut
standing out of the crowd is the offer enabling small and non-technologically
advanced investors to purchase gold and cryptocurrencies, which are inac-
cessible in traditional financial institutions.
The operations of challenger banks, and Revolut in particular, contribute
to removing the barrier of inaccessibility to numerous financial services.
So far, retail customers disposing only small amount of savings, usually
young, less educated and low-income customers, had limited possibilities
to diversify their investments (Goetzmann & Kumar, 2008). Their choices
were confined mainly to the offer of mutual funds, which, however, were not
giving the possibility to control investments, make free decisions and exer-
cise investor rights. Fees and a long time of realization of transactions were
additional barriers. The barrier of entrance to the investment market has
never been so low as it is now, when customers may start buying shares from
1 USD. Thus, the offer of Revolut and other challenger banks is a significant
factor in democratization of access to the investment market.
The sources of Revolut’s success should be sought not only in its technolog-
ical or product innovations but also in innovative legal solutions based on the
EU legislation (Polasik et al., 2020). Revolut operates with the use of several
companies registered in different Member States and having different licenses
(electronic money institution license, banking license, investment firm license)
for specific types of financial activities, such as payment services, investment
activities and others. At the same time, the entity’s operating activities are
carried out from yet another country. The decentralized business model in
legal terms is an expression of the use of the phenomenon of regulatory arbi-
trage (Houston et al., 2012) as an instrument to increase the efficiency of busi-
ness operations and, as a result, to reduce fees for clients.

Conclusions
Revolut has been used as the case to analyze the challenger banking as a new
digital form of providing financial services to retail customers in the EU
Internal Market. The study has explored product innovations introduced
188 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
by the company to make the capital market and alternative investments
available for small investors. The analysis has included: the mechanisms of
new services, the market strategy and the Revolut’s offer compared to tra-
ditional financial institutions and other challenger banks. Moreover, it has
explained the legal formula enabling the operations of Revolut.
Over the past years, challenger banks around the world have introduced
significant financial innovations. Their innovative approach refers not only
to the business offer or a technological side of products but also to the
legal layer of operations. Thus, the Revolut’s investment offer is an inno-
vation, which increases financial inclusion and brings socio-economic ben-
efits. What is more, it becomes a real challenge for traditional players in
financial markets, both banks and mutual funds. Extreme decrease in the
amount of money needed to start investments and providing the investors
with the rights to online voting contribute to democratization of the finan-
cial market and sets new standards, the traditional players will be forced to
respond to. The fact that other challenger banks and FinTech companies
follow this innovation and introduce similar investment products indicates
that the financial market is under permanent transformation triggered by
the innovations presented in the study. Moreover, the study shows that the
EU passporting system, in connection with the optimization of jurisdic-
tion for authorization and friendly supervision authority combined with the
right choice of authorization regime (electronic money institution, special-
ized bank), have a significant impact on the dynamic development of the
company.
Discussing the findings of the study, the limitations of the research pro-
cess should be explained. First of all, the study does not analyze the changes
and risks for Revolut associated with Brexit, as it takes into account the
legal status as of December 31, 2020. Secondly, we are aware of inherent
weaknesses of the case study methodology, which is often criticized for
insufficient scientific rigor. Therefore, although we have made all the efforts
to ensure quality of the study and its validity, we refrain from attempts to
make generalizations based on this single case and we rather use its explor-
atory potential to formulate propositions to be tested in further studies
(cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). Thus, replicating this study as well as conducting a
multiple case study analysis and/or a survey among the other challenger
banks seems to be a natural line of future research. Thirdly, limitations in
data collection processes should be mentioned. In spite of efforts to have a
balanced view of the Revolut’s operations by combining the perspective of
external stakeholders (FinTech experts and users of Revolut’s services) and
the company itself, only one representative of the company participated in
the interview survey.
This exploratory study contributes both to the development of manage-
ment studies and business practice. From the perspective of management
theory, it identifies the mechanisms of developing and implementing finan-
cial innovations considering the opportunities resulting from advancement
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 189
of ICTs, and changes in law. Regarding business practice, studying the case
of Revolut may bring some observations, insights, lessons and best practices
to be useful for other challenger banks. Whereas the issue of the impact of
the challenger bank business model on financial inclusiveness will require
further, thorough studies.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland under
Grant No. 2017/26/E/HS4/00858.
The views expressed in the article are the personal views of the authors
and do not express the official positions of the institutions, which they are
employed by.

Note
1. In line with art. 33 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and
the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amend-
ing Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/
EC (CRDIV).

References
Aion. (2020). Asset management. https://www.aion.be/en/asset-management.
Akhisar, İ, Tunay, K. B., & Tunay, N. (2015). The effects of innovations on bank
performance: The case of electronic banking services. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 195, 369–375. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.336.
Aldiabat, K., Al-Gasaymeh, A., & Rashid, A. S. K. (2019). The effect of mobile
banking application on customer interaction in the Jordanian banking industry.
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(2), 37–48. doi: https://
doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i02.9262.
Arslanian, H., & Fischer, F. (2019). The future of finance: The impact of FinTech, AI,
and crypto on financial services. Springer.
Bataev, A. (2019). Financial technology: Efficiency evaluation of challenger banks.
In S. Shaposhnikov (Ed.), 2019 IEEE conference of Russian young researchers
in electrical and electronic engineering (EIConRus) (pp. 1371–1375). IEEE. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1109/EIConRus.2019.8657260.
Bataev, A., Koroleva, L., & Gorovoy, A. (2019). Innovative approaches in the finan-
cial sphere: Assessment of digital banks’ performance. The Proceedings of the
14th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE 2019),
141–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.34190/ECIE.19.038.
Bilan, Y., Rubanov, P., Vasylieva, T., & Lyeonov, S. (2019). The influence of indus-
try 4.0 on financial services: Determinants of alternative finance development.
Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 70–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.17512/
pjms.2019.19.1.06.
Bruggink, D., & Coehlo, P. (2020). The payments landscape in Portugal: An inter-
view with Pedro Coelho. Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems, 14(1), 6–9.
190 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
Butor-Keler, A., & Polasik, M. (2020). The role of regulatory sandboxes in the devel-
opment of innovations on the financial services market: The case of the United
Kingdom. Ekonomia i Prawo. Economics and Law, 19(4), 621–638. doi: https://doi.
org/10.12775/EiP.2020.041.
Cable, V. (2014). Observations on the UK banking industry. International Review of
Financial Analysis, 36, 84–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.011.
Capgemini, & Efma. (2020). World Fintech Report 2020. https://fintechworldreport.
com/resources/world-fintech-report-2020/.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of
best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380.
Deloitte. (2020). The DNA of digital challenger banks. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/
en/pages/financial-services/articles/digital-challenger-bank.html.
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2018). The Global
Findex database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the FinTech revolution.
World Bank. doi: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1259-0.
DeYoung, R., Lang, W. W., & Nolle, D. L. (2007). How the internet affects output
and performance at community banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31(4),
1033–1060. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.10.003.
Financial Conduct Authority. (2021). Revolut Ltd. https://register.fca.org.uk/s/
firm?id=001b000002zyAwNAAU.
Financial Stability Board. (2017). Financial stability implications from Fintech:
Supervisory and regulatory issues that merit authorities’ attention. https://www.fsb.
org/wp-content/uploads/R270617.pdf.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
FT Partners Research. (2020). The rise of challenger banks. Are the apps taking over?
https://ftpartners.docsend.com/view/28mpmwt.
Galazova, S. S., & Magomaeva, L. R. (2019). The transformation of traditional
banking activity in digital. International Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, 7(2), 41–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/369.
Goetzmann, W. N., & Kumar, A. (2008). Equity portfolio diversification. Review of
Finance, 12(3), 433–463. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfn005.
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the FinTech
revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation
in financial services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 220–265.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766.
Google Play (2021). Revolut - Get more from your money. https://play.google.com/
store/apps/details?id=com.revolut.revolut&hl=en_US&gl=US.
Górka, J. (2018). Interchange fee economics: To regulate or not to regulate? Palgrave
Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03041-4.
Gurrea-Martínez, A., & Remolina, N. (n.d.). Global Challenges and Regulatory
Strategies to Fintech (2020/01; SMU Centre for AI & Data Governance Research
Paper). doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3576506.
Hernando, I., & Nieto, M. J. (2007). Is the internet delivery channel changing banks’
performance? The case of Spanish banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31(4),
1083–1099. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.10.011.
Hopkinson, G., Klarova, D., Turcan, R. V., & Gulieva, V. (2019). How neobanks’
business models challenge traditional banks (Aalborg University Young Graduate
News). http://www.e-pages.dk/aalborguniversitet/769/html5/.
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 191
Houston, J. F., Lin, C., & Ma, Y. (2012). Regulatory arbitrage and international
bank flows. Journal of Finance, 67(5), 1845–1895. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-6261.2012.01774.x.
Kasiewicz, S. (2018). PSD2. Krytyczny przystanek na drodze do nowej ery bankow-
ości. Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
Khiaonarong, T., & Goh, T. (2020). Fintech and payments regulation:
Analytical framework (WP/20/75; IMF Working Paper). doi: https://doi.
org/10.5089/9781513531496.001.
Korzeniowska, A. M., & Huterska, A. (2020). Saving inclusion in the European
union countries – Trends and differences. In K. S. Soliman (Ed.), Education excel-
lence and innovation management: A 2025 vision to sustain economic development
during global challenges (pp. 9844–9854). International Business Information
Management Association, IBIMA.
Lashitew, A. A., Van Tulder, R., & Liasse, Y. (2019). Mobile phones for financial
inclusion: What explains the diffusion of mobile money innovations? Research
Policy, 48(5), 1201–1215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.010.
Lee, I., & Shin, Y. J. (2018). FinTech: Ecosystem, business models, investment deci-
sions, and challenges. Business Horizons, 61(1), 35–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2017.09.003.
Lis, A. (2018). Profiling and mapping the contexts of the case study research in
business, management and accounting. International Journal of Contemporary
Management, 17(1), 179–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939ijcm.18.010.8389.
Lu, L. (2017). Financial technology and challenger banks in the UK: Gap fillers or
real challengers? Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation 2017, 32(7),
273–282.
Marszałek, P. (2019). Kryptowaluty – Pojęcie, cechy, kontrowersje. Studia BAS,
1(57), 105–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.31268/StudiaBAS.2019.06.
Milian, E. Z., Spinola, M. M., & Carvalho, M. M. (2019). FinTechs: A literature
review and research agenda. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 34,
100833. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100833.
Musabegović, I., Özer, M., Đuković, S., & Jovanović, S. (2019). Influence of finan-
cial technology (FinTech) on financial industry. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 66(4),
1003–1021. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj1904003M.
Myers, M. D. (2010). Case study research. In M. Frenz, K. Nielsen, & G. Walters
(Eds.), Research methods in management (pp. 227–248). Sage.
Nabilou, H. (2019). How to regulate bitcoin? Decentralized regulation for a decen-
tralized cryptocurrency. International Journal of Law and Information Technology,
27(3), 266–291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaz008.
Nahorniak, I., Leonova, K., & Skorokhod, V. (2016). Cryptocurrency in the context
of development of digital single market in European Union. InterEULawEast,
3(1), 107–124.
Nsouli, S. M., & Schaechter, A. (2002). Challenges of the “e-banking revolution.”
Finance & Development, 39(3). https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/
2002/09/nsouli.htm.
Palladino, L. (2019). Democratizing investment. Politics and Society, 47(4), 573–591.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329219878989.
Patton, E., & Appelbaum, S. H. (2003). The case for case studies in manage-
ment research. Management Research News, 26(5), 60–71. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1108/01409170310783484.
192 M. Polasik, P. Widawski and A. Lis
Philippon, T. (2017). The FinTech opportunity. BIS Working Papers, 655, 1–29.
Polasik, M., Huterska, A., Iftikhar, R., & Mikula, Š. (2020). The impact of pay-
ment services directive 2 on the PayTech sector development in Europe. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 178, 385–401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2020.07.010.
Polasik, M., Piotrowska, A., Wisniewski, T. P., Kotkowski, R., & Lightfoot, G. (2016).
Price fluctuations and the use of bitcoin: An empirical inquiry. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(1), 9–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/108644
15.2016.1061413.
Remolina, N. (2019). Open Banking: Regulatory Challenges for a New Form of
Financial Intermediation in a Data-Driven World (2019/05; SMU Centre for AI &
Data Governance Research Paper).
Revolut. (2020). Go from cash to crypto instantly. https://www.revolut.com/en-AU/
go-from-cash-to-crypto-instantly.
Revolut. (2021a). Investing for growth with Revolut trading. https://www.revolut.com/
stock-trading
Revolut. (2021b). What fees will I be charged for my trading? https://www.revolut.
com/en-PT/help/wealth/stocks/trading-stocks/what-fees-will-i-be-charged-
for-my-trading/
Roberts, W. L. (1959). Fractional corporate shares. Kentucky Law Journal, 47(4),
507–514.
Robinhood. (2021). Investing for everyone. https://robinhood.com/us/en/.
Romanova, I., Grima, S., Spiteri, J., & Kudinska, M. (2018). The payment services
directive II and competitiveness: The perspective of European FinTech compa-
nies. European Research Studies Journal, 21(2), 3–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.35808/
ersj/981.
Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1),
16–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990.
Sahay, R., Allmen, U., Lahreche, A., Khera, P., Ogawa, S., Bazarbash, M.,
& Beato, K. (2020). The Promise of FinTech: Financial Inclusion in the Post
COVID-19 Era (20/09; IMF Departmental Paper Series). doi: https://doi.
org/10.5089/9781513512242.087.
Schepinin, V., & Bataev, A. (2019). Digitalization of financial sphere: Challenger
banks efficiency estimation. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, 497(1), 012051. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/497/1/012051.
Schmidt, R. H., Hackethal, A., & Tyrell, M. (1999). Disintermediation and the
role of banks in Europe: An international comparison. Journal of Financial
Intermediation, 8(1–2), 36–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jfin.1998.0256.
Sibanda, W., Ndiweni, E., Boulkeroua, M., Echchabi, A., & Ndlovu, T. (2020).
Digital technology disruption on bank business models. International Journal
of Business Performance Management, 21(1/2), 184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJBPM.2020.106121.
Stevens, R. (2020). A UK challenger bank goes peer-to-peer with crypto, with a catch.
https://decrypt.co/41023/ziglu-goes-peer-to-peer.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for develop-
ing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.
British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8551.00375.
 Challenger bank as a new digital form 193
Van Hove, L., & Dubus, A. (2019). M-PESA and financial inclusion in Kenya: Of
paying comes saving? Sustainability, 11(3), 1–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11030568.
Vivid. (2020). Commission-free investing with no limits. https://vivid.money/en-eu/
investments/.
Yin, R. K. (2010). Designing case studies. In M. Frenz, K. Nielsen, & G. Walters
(Eds.), Research methods in management (pp. 185–226). Sage.