Priya Jaiswal brings a wealth of experience to the table regarding the intricate dance between fintech innovation and the heavy hand of federal regulation. In this discussion, we explore the recent and quite public rejection of the Dutch neobank Bunq by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This case serves as a masterclass in the complexities of entering the American financial sector, touching on everything from capital transparency to the necessity of seasoned, full-time leadership. By examining the disconnect between European success and U.S. regulatory expectations, we gain a clearer picture of why even the most persistent disruptors find the American banking market one of the toughest in the world to crack.
Regulators often scrutinize the source of initial capital, especially when funds transition from personal holdings to corporate dividends; how do these shifting financial narratives impact the likelihood of a charter approval?
When a firm like Bunq modifies its capital story mid-application, it creates a sense of administrative instability that federal monitors are trained to flag immediately. Initially proposing $50 million from the CEO’s personal holdings and then revising that figure to $58.3 million via a company dividend—without providing detailed availability of that extra capital—signals a lack of transparency. For the OCC, the “source of strength” doctrine is not just a suggestion; it is a requirement for a bank to have a predictable and rock-solid foundation. If the math doesn’t feel credible or if the peer analysis on credit losses feels unsupported, the regulator will view the entire proposal as a house of cards. The sting of being told your capital is “inadequate” is a heavy blow for a fintech that is used to the more flexible venture-backed environment of Europe.
Management experience was a primary sticking point in this rejection, specifically regarding the leadership’s familiarity with U.S. laws. How significant is the requirement for a “full-time” presence when a foreign entity attempts to launch a national bank?
The OCC’s critique of the proposed President and CEO was particularly biting because it highlighted a perceived lack of dedication and localized expertise. Proposing a leader who intended to remain part-time while splitting his focus across other related entities suggests to regulators that the U.S. operation might not receive the oversight it requires. Managing a national bank in the States involves navigating a labyrinth of federal banking laws and anti-money laundering compliance that is vastly different from the European landscape. Even though this team successfully landed a greenfield European banking license in 2014, the regulator felt they did not demonstrate a visceral understanding of the specific credit risks inherent in the American market. A “part-time” approach to one of the most regulated industries in the world is almost always a non-starter for the Comptroller.
The path to profitability for this fintech was described as “unrealistic” given the competitive landscape of the U.S. market. What are the specific hurdles that make the American credit card sector so difficult for international newcomers to navigate?
Breaking into the U.S. market with unsecured credit cards is an uphill battle against established giants who possess massive brand recognition and deep marketing pockets. The OCC pointed out that Bunq’s marketing and business plans were inadequately supported, failing to account for the sheer expense required to compete when you have zero name recognition. It is telling that the company launched its European commercial operations in 2015 but did not reach a full year of profitability until fiscal 2023, a success that was largely tied to interest rate hikes at the European Central Bank. When those rates shifted in 2024-2025, profits declined, which suggests to a regulator that the business model might be too sensitive to external volatility. Without a credible strategy to manage loan-loss assumptions, the regulator sees a roadmap that is more based on hope than on a realistic analysis of the American consumer’s credit behavior.
This is not the first time a major fintech has faced such a wall, with other firms like Wise seeing similar results. What does the “difference of views” between international regulators say about the current climate for cross-border banking licenses?
The 301-day wait during Bunq’s first application, which eventually led to a withdrawal, underscores a fundamental friction between how the Netherlands and the U.S. view financial supervision. We are seeing a pattern where even successful firms, like Wise, are being turned away because they cannot demonstrate “sufficient familiarity” with federal laws or address concerns regarding anti-money laundering. This regulatory gap creates a significant barrier for “digital nomad” banking models that thrive on being borderless and agile. The U.S. system is designed to be a fortress of stability, and when state or federal regulators sense any gap in compliance or supervisory depth, they would rather say “no” than risk a systemic failure. It is a reminder that while the technology of fintech moves at light speed, the machinery of the OCC still moves with a deliberate, cautious, and often skeptical pace.
Despite the setback, the leadership remains publicly undeterred and focused on the future. What is your forecast for the future of international fintechs seeking U.S. bank charters?
I expect we will see a shift where fintechs stop trying to “disrupt” the charter process and instead start over-investing in local compliance talent before they even file an application. The era of trying to use a European success story as a shortcut to a U.S. license is over; firms will now need to prove they have a full-time, U.S.-based leadership team with specific experience in domestic credit products. We will likely see more firms following the broker-dealer route first, much like Bunq did with its FINRA license in October, to build a footprint before attempting the full bank charter again. Persistence is admirable, but in the eyes of the OCC, persistence must be paired with a massive increase in capital transparency and a business plan that doesn’t rely on temporary interest rate spikes to prove it can survive. The bar has been set exceptionally high, and only those willing to fully “Americanize” their corporate structure and risk management will eventually find a way through the door.
