Tuum Talks Episode 4: The Future of Core Banking

Welcome to Tuum Talks Episode #4: The Future of Core Banking

Recorded Live: Thursday, February 15, 2024
Host: Myles Bertrand, CEO of Tuum
Guest: Heiko Schwender, Managing Partner at CommerzVentures

We recently concluded another enlightening session of Tuum Talks, delving into the dynamic world of core banking. Our fourth episode, themed “The Future of Core Banking,” featured a thought-provoking discussion with Tuum CEO, Myles Bertrand, and our esteemed guest, Heiko Schwender, on the evolving landscape of banking technology. Their discussion covered:

  • The growth trajectory of the core banking market 
  • Technological innovations shaping the future 
  • Strategies for core banking system replacement and modernization 

Watch or read their discussion below as the two explore the pressing issues and exciting opportunities in core banking. From the complexities of system migration to the promise of AI-enhanced banking services, this episode is a deep dive into the forces driving change in the financial sector. 

Key Takeaways: 

  • The critical importance of agility and adaptability in banking platforms
  • Why the replacement of core systems is still so low 
  • A realistic view on the role of AI in the future of banking 

We extend our thanks to Heiko Schwender for sharing his expertise and to all our attendees for joining the conversation.  

Stay Tuned for More: 

Don’t miss out on future Tuum Talks episodes. Sign up for our newsletter at the bottom of the page to get updates on upcoming events, industry insights, and the latest from Tuum. 

The Future of Core Banking

[Full Transcript]

[00:00:00] Myles: Hi, everybody. I’m Myles Bertrand, CEO of Tuum. Welcome to Tuum Talks. It’s my pleasure to welcome Heiko Schwender, Managing Partner for CommerzVentures. Thanks for being here, Heiko.

[00:00:27] Heiko: Hey, Myles. It’s a pleasure that you have me here.

[00:00:30] Myles: First and foremost, official welcome to the Tuum family. We put the press out the other day, but it’s fantastic to have you as a part of our family and working with us collaboratively going forward. Very excited by that fact as well.

[00:00:45] Heiko: Same on my end, Myles. This has been quite a journey, super excited to be on board and very much looking forward to our joint journey.

[00:00:54] Myles: Good. Now, first personal question. I always like to ask these early in the session. Why did you become a venture capitalist? Why did you get involved with venture capital?

[00:01:06] Heiko: As many people my age, after university there was a question about whether consultancy or investment banking. I decided for investment banking for a couple of years. I was involved in IPOs, rights issues, M&A stuff; but always at the intersection of tech and financial services.

But what I realized, especially after financial crisis in 2008, is it was not enough for me just to remain as an intermediary there, just doing deals after deal. Doing something else, say go to the next IPO. I wanted to get more involved with founders, with management teams and with companies, to work together. The buy side then was the obvious outcome for me.

Did an MBA in the States, had different plans, but then got a call from Conrad’s bank to come back to Germany and to set up a venture capital fund, which I did then together with a bunch of other folks in 2013/14. The rest as is it called, is history.

[00:02:10] Myles: Ah, very good. Looking at your organization, you’ve made some fantastic investments in this space previously. I’m not including us in that list, but I think now you’ve made your best investment.

But you’ve got a couple of significant investments in core banking now. Why is CommerzVentures interested in that particular part of the market and part of the space?

[00:02:34] Heiko: It’s not the natural one. Core banking is for many people quite a special type of animal.

[00:02:42] Myles: I tell everyone it’s really boring.

[00:02:46] Heiko: You’re doing the job, I’m only investing. In the early stage VC, there are a couple of attributes we are looking for when doing investment. It’s about the team, the product. But specifically around core banking what I’m looking for is huge pain points that just require sophisticated new solutions to solve those pain points. Second, we are looking for either fast growing markets, and/or already quite massive markets. With with core banking, I think it’s a combination of both.

Existing traditional financial institutions have a lot of pain points to deal with a bunch of stuff. We are more than happy to dive into it. But second, it’s a major market. Therefore banking infrastructure in general, including core banking, is definitely an interesting piece for us.

[00:03:45] Myles: The audience has heard me talk about it before how I believe there’s a real wave of change coming. You mentioned it is a big market, it’s significant, it continues to grow. Being in core banking myself for a number of years, you see that. How do you feel it’s changed over the years?

[00:04:05] Heiko: You mean in terms of size of the market or the structure of the market?

[00:04:10] Myles: I think both really. The size of the market and then also the structure of it, and the opportunities for new organizations like Tuum to be part of that.

[00:04:19] Heiko: Covers a bunch of questions. Let’s start with the market sizing exercise. There’s a bunch of research, but the last piece I saw for 2023, we talk about the market size only for license fees, not consultancy services, of about $15 billion, which is already quite a massive market. But not only massive, but also growing. Widespread growing; we’ll come to in a second. But also here, researchers forecast something like 8-10%% CAGR. We’re talking about the market that could become about $30 billion in size in 2030. Massive market, massive opportunities also for new companies.

If we talk about what are the pain points in terms of structure, I think the background is that financial institutions have been around for the last 60, 70 years, in the way we know them as of today. The underlying technology is sometimes quite old. We talk about mainframe systems that were programmed in Cobol programming language, that not many people speak today anymore.

It’s about an involvement of banking from mainframe to SAP systems, all on premise. More recently, from the early 2000s onwards where cloud computing became more comfortable to be used also in banking, we see the next generation of core banking providers. The first logos there like Thought Machine, Mambo and others, they’re really supported in opening up the market here that traditional FIs actually are willing to consume core banking services in the cloud. I would say this was unthinkable off in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

Now Tuum is here, and say Tuum comes with the next generation services to ride this wave and to sell to the traditional FIs that have a lot of pressure.

[00:06:28] Myles: I can’t agree more. Mambo and Thought Machine certainly broke the glass ceiling and continue to be fantastic brands on the marketplace. I think we’re just adding ourselves to that space, but it really does.

If I look at FinTech as a whole, it’s quite interesting that we consider to see really good momentum in the core banking sub part of the market over the past 12, 24 months. But other parts of FinTech have really struggled. It’s been Tough. What do you think the reasoning is behind that?

[00:07:02] Heiko: I think this is a bit more structural type of a hype cycle. FinTech was potentially one of the hottest subsectors for venture capital and private equity from 2018 to late 2021, for several reasons. Excessive capital just floats into FinTechs, early stage, scale ups and late stage. For some reasons, crazy valuations in terms of multiples were paid. We know situations of series A or B companies, early stage, unit economics, not the best. Those companies were able in 2021 to raise it 500 times revenue multiple, which is unseen off. It was just healthy in terms of the overall FinTech sector.

All of this exaggeration stopped then in early 2022. As you said, Myles, yes, over the last 24 months, being an investor in FinTech or even more severe being an operator of a FinTech, has become a bit more difficult, especially to raise funds.

For us, or for most investors, there was or has been a shift in a move from growth at any costs, to a sustainable growth and capital efficiency. It’s a change in terms of mindset.

Talking about core banking, as you said also, the next generation core banking providers have been attractive for a bunch of investors for many years. Those companies had been able to raise significant amount of money over the years, which is fantastic. The reason for that is core banking or those providers come with specific parameters. A, to my point before, massive market and huge pain points, but also B, we talk here about scarcity value. We’re talking about the market with thousands of fintechs, but we only have a handful, maybe a bit more of companies in that space bullying for a lot of money. That has been the reason I would say why next generation core banking has been super attractive to the investor scene.

This is also why we at CommerzVentures are so excited about our investment in you guys. The market is fantastic. The Team comes with the right experience about how to build a respective platform, but also how to run it. It’s difficult to build core banking services and also to sell them to traditional FIs. You need to speak the right language, you need to understand the requirements for IT security, for compliance, for usage, for whatever.

But also you guys have shown very strong growth of your top line while still had an eye on capital efficiency. As you and I know, there are a few more exciting announcements to come over the next weeks. Unfortunately, we can’t touch on them today.

[00:10:17] Myles: Yeah. But having just gone through that exercise, and again very thankful that you are our partner going forward, but just the effort to go through a capital raise, the conversations were very different to what they used to be in 2020 and 2021. The type of metrics that the investors are looking for, the amount of due diligence they were actually doing, the questions that were asked were very different to the two or three years ago, when it’s how much money do you want to grow at all costs, et cetera. I do really agree with you 100% of the being that change.

But the barrier to entry for core banking is so high. The underlying DNA and what’s required, I think that’s why that the segment in particular continues to stay strong, and I believe it will continue to be strong going forward. Very good.

Now, switching little bit, let’s talk about the target audience, and let’s talk about your experience and background. Why would you say banks need to replace their core systems? Because there was an argument for a very long time that it was all about the customer experience, it was all about the UX, the UI, it was all about those touch points. But I agree with you, I’m starting to see a real shift in the market and attitude. We’re not talking neos and the digitals here, we’re talking about well established FIs that have been around 60, 80, 100 years plus.

[00:11:45] Heiko: Yeah, I do agree. From the investor side, for a long time consumer facing fintechs have been raising a lot of money. Infrastructure games were a bit behind, not for us at CommerzVentures, but for other investors. But the trend, and this also a proof point by the growth rate of the core banking space, in my view, there is significant pressure for traditional FIs for digital transformation.

Why is that the case?

Yes, there is competitive pressure from your peers, from other banks, but also from FinTech. FinTechs like FBN have been doing a good job over the last years in serving retail customers and corporate customers. Also the first big techs are bullying for consumers. Apple has built a very strong distribution line.

Second, there is an increasing demand from all type of banking customers for digital solutions. Retail customers, SMEs, and corporations, are looking for digital stuff.

Last but not least, regulation. The regulatory pressure is high in that any bank has to provide proper accounting, proper numbers, everything needs to be proved, have proper compliance process in place. Also when it comes to RWA calculations, loan calculations, all of that is not a one-time exercise. It comes on a weekly basis. You need to deal with that.

However, now swimming out and looking at the traditional advice, talking about research, there’s a lot of research available that says a traditional FI spends 70-80% of the entire IT budget only on run the bank, i.e. maintaining the existing infrastructure, leaving 20-30% for innovation. If you have so much pressure, if you have so much demand for digital services, but you have only a little budget for that, that is difficult if you’re not a JP Morgan or the like.

Why is that the case, this high number of 70-80%? Banks just run on very old, complex and grown up IT infrastructure. It’s like a spaghetti bowl if you look at it, to the respective landscapes. That has thrown over just over decades. The issues with that is it’s heavy maintenance to just implement any change you do at the front end or at the middle layer to the back end. It’s around vendor lock-ins, which makes it difficult and requires often consultancies. You can’t run proper analytics on the core banking side of things, but you need to have it for the regulators and for your stakeholders. Again, touching on COBOL, there are not many people that understand the respective programming language. It’s really difficult. Therefore, to remain competitive, it’s not enough for a TradiFy to just innovate on the front end. You need to have a full digital stack end to end. Hope that answers your question.

[00:15:03] Myles: I agree, it does very much so. But I think one of the interesting things that I’ve found as well is that also the regulators now, on one hand they’ve had the stick where they’ve been really driving compliance. But also, they have seen some regulators in some markets that they’re saying, you need to innovate. You can’t just sit on your hands and not do anything.

You’re seeing a real shift in the market across all facets. But I agree 100%, the stat of 80% is just spent on keeping the lights on and meeting compliance requirements. For some large institutions, it’s a substantial amount of money we’re talking about here. It’s going to reach a tipping point at some point.

I’m not going to be unfair and ask you a very technical question, Heiko, because that wouldn’t be fair of me on that. But there’s lots of questions about, what are the replacement options for institutions? How do they think about how they’re going to tackle this? Because if you look at the stat in the market right now, only about 3% of the banks and financial institutions around the world are replacing their core a year. That’s a very low number considering how good the technology is that’s out there right now.

What are their options? How do they tackle this? That always seems to be the big question when we speak to banks, is they’re not sure how to get started. How do they actually tackle this?

[00:16:38] Heiko: I would separate the question between what are the replacement options and why is the rate only the 3%?

My two cents on the letter is, when we talk about the core banking system, it’s like an open-heart surgery. We’re dealing with the most sensitive thing with a bank. Therefore it’s very different from changing just a new FI while it’s adding another API into the stack, versus really dealing with core banking, migration of replacement, whatever.

Just looking at the numbers for a traditional FI to replace a core banking system, for all the arguments I mentioned before, it’s a very complex project. This can take a couple of years for a proper bank to replace their core banking system because it’s so much intermingled with the middle layer. The related costs could easily be something about tens of millions for the entire project. For tier one to two bank, they can exceed 100 million.  It’s a major project. Any traditional FI would think about twice, I would assume.

Out of theory from a strategic perspective, yes, to remain innovative and competitive, you need to do those changes despite the respective risk. However, on the other side, if you are the CTO of a bank, which normally you’re nominated as a management board member for four or five years, there’s a huge risk return issue that you are failing and then you’re not nominated again. It’s about also the right incentive there.

But what we don’t should forget is 3% is still a large number. Considering that a company like you guys, like the other next gen core banking providers can ask for a high six-digit ACV, for bigger bank even a seven-digit ACV or even larger, this is good money you could generate every year and increase your market share by just getting part of that 3%.  Yes, it’s a low number, but still there should be a lot of opportunities for you guys to grab market share.

In terms of the replacement options, let me go from, in my opinion, the least attractive to the most attractive decisions. The least one is what many banks still do, just throw a lot of money to the consultants, to maintain the core banking, infrastructure. This is not a good solution. This is not sustainable; it costs a lot of money, and it does not help you to become more innovative.

The second one is what many banks have been doing and will do, to continue especially to modernize the middle stack, i.e. adding another orchestration player, adding another API management layer, adding microservices, and making the entire UI sexier. It doesn’t solve for the ultimate solution, but at least it will help you to remain competitive for some time.

Further up, I think a good way is to start speed boats. Some banks already have done this. This could be Greenfield projects, or just the decision to say, for a specific type of customer segment and a product, I’m launching a speed boat that runs on the next gen core banker provider, for example, 2. This is a good solution that at some point in time you need to do more, but at least part of your organization will be then end to end, a digital.

Last but not least, we’re talking about the full replacement digital type of transformation project, which as I just alluded to, it’s extensive, it takes a lot of time. But this only helps you for the long run.

[00:20:53] Myles: Great answer. Lots in there that you and I have spoke about on a regular basis. Our perception is the same.

I think the market is shifting, the appetite. I always say that quite often it requires a cultural change in a lot of these organizations. They’ve done things the same way for such a long time. Asking them to really think completely different about how they’re going to get to the same outcome, is a very different path to how they normally would have done these things. That quite often is a bridge too far for a lot of organizations. But I do believe we’re starting to see that change. The active encouragement from the regulator, the real acceptance of cloud and cloud to host mission critical systems, is really changing the sphere. I think you guys are seeing the same thing for your perception of the market as well as we are.

Again, it’s a long way to go, lot to be done. But I think you’re starting to see a real change in the market from that perspective.

It wouldn’t be a TuneForks or it wouldn’t be any podcast at the moment if we didn’t talk about AI. It’s just the way of the world right now. In your opinion, how do you think about AI and how it potentially affects core banking? Is it as big a change as the cloud? Everyone says the cloud has been a massive catalyst for financial services and banking. Is AI the next wave?

[00:22:29] Heiko: Yeah, it’s a good one. Talking about Gartner hype cycle, I would assume Gen AI is either on the top or on its way to the top. We will see the actual applications in the next couple of years, decade, in the financial services world, including core banking.

Sorry for repeating myself, but as we said earlier, financial institutions have to become more digital. On that basis, they need to adopt advanced technologies, and that includes AI at some point in time. In my view, AI has very clearly the potential to boost customer experience, to boost productivity, and also to reduce operational expenses. All of this is rather geared towards the distribution side of things. In this regard, very clear AI will become a tool set, a mechanism for financial services institutions to become more innovative and to serve better their customers.

When we talk about backend, including core banking, I’m slightly conservative these days. Why? All the critical functionalities, the critical parameter data that are under the umbrella of being regulated activities are archived and captured in the core banking systems and databases.

Maybe it’s my German conservative background, but as of today, I feel a bit uncomfortable that a regulator would allow a bank to run the entire backend organization based on AI without any human intervention and this will be signed off by a regulator. But As you said, Myles, with the cloud, in the early 2000s no bank CEO would have allowed that your core banking is run on the cloud, and today it works. Maybe also the regulators will change their mind a bit. In 10 years of time, we’ll have a different environment.

Joking aside, I still don’t think that we will see JNI conquer the entire core banking space. I think there will still be some interventions required by people.

[00:24:56] Myles: I agree a 100%. Customer experience, support, things like that, is going to be really important. It can be effective. But I am also on that ilk. If I think about where we’re going with that, we don’t want to be an AI platform, but we want to be AI enabled. Because my perception is that there’ll be upstream services that need data from the core that AI can potentially support. But the key thing for me, though, is that you can’t work with that when you’ve got a core that’s 30 years old and it goes to sleep for five hours each day while it does its internal batch processing.

I’m a big believer that even just to be AI read, whatever way it goes, this is another driver. The incumbents don’t need to be AI ready today, but they need to start thinking about it, that they’re enabled and ready to go in two or three years.

Is it as big as cloud? Can’t say. Is it going to have an impact? Personally, and I think we as an organization believe it will.

[00:26:01] Heiko: Yeah, I do agree on your points. I think that way data information is pushed into and pulled out of the core banking system can be definitely be enhanced by AI. The same is true for the orchestration and management layer above.

There’s clearly a wave. As you said, still you need to have smart connectors if you would like to push data into a mainframe system. But, here we are with Tuum. This makes it much easier if your entire core banking system is already quite modern and can deal with this type of data.

[00:26:42] Myles: Circling back a little bit now, you as a VC, always in a unique position that you have lots of really smart people come and talk to you and pitch their ideas and their prospects about what you want to do. Aligning that a little bit with what you know with the space, probably being one of them a big significant investor in exchange core banking platforms with a couple of investments, do you see more new entrants? Do you think it’s an easy part of the market? As you said, there’s a handful, the barrier to entry is high. But when you look at it from an investment perspective, what do you think about people that come to you with a core banking pitch?

[00:27:24] Heiko: Our remedy is mainly geared around Europe, UK, and a bit U.S. and so on. We don’t see the entire world. That said, we don’t see a lot of opportunities in terms of the next generation core banker providers. This for the reasons we have been talking about. Building such a solution in a way that it can be consumed by proper FIs and also being able to sell it, is super tough. You need to have a very complimentary type of management team and end people, product people.

We only see very few early stage companies in that specific space, i.e. selling a pure core banking solution. There are many mass solutions, but only very few core banking solutions.

Going forward, given the attractiveness of the opportunity in general in core banking, I assume people see some opportunities, some new companies popping up, but not as many as relatively speaking to other sub verticals in fintech.

[00:28:34] Myles: Okay. That’s good for me to hear. Too much competition is not just good from that perspective.

Do you see any untapped opportunities within the space? If you look at core banking in particular, as we have talked a bit about that, but if you have to look holistically across financial services and FinTech, do you see untapped opportunities at the moment? Do you see gaps where organizations aren’t filling those gaps at the moment?

[00:29:05] Heiko: When we talk about untapped opportunities in the context of core banking, you need to tell me but I think one major challenge is the actual migration for a bank. You have an existing core banking system and now Tuum comes, but at some point in time you need to switch from A to B. But there is no chance that information cannot be covered properly. You still need to provide the respective reliability to our customers. This critical moment and how to deal with it, I think is super critical, but also a very required piece of software stack to be built.

Whether this is a full product, i.e. you could build the next FinTech out of it, or it’s an extension of a solution like Tuum, i.e. support your customers with this migration project, I’m still not so sure about. But this is a problem that needs to be solved to provide banks more comfortability to make this decision without the respective risk.

The second is around ecosystem marketplaces. Marketplaces are everywhere, and they are FinTech serving only marketplaces for specific solutions. There’s clearly a further increase in the requirements and offerings from marketplaces. This can be interesting for FIs when it comes to the backend, that you don’t have this lock-in effect with a specific vendor. Just looking for very smart, point solutions that work together with a solution like Tuum, i.e. you have an ecosystem that is smartly integrated into Tuum for example, and delivers immediately the value without the respective AI need to look for themselves for a new provider.

[00:31:08] Myles: Okay. I agree 100%. I don’t know the number of projects that get killed because they get really happy with what they see, but then no one can answer the migration question. It’s always a very challenging one for established organizations. It’s something that we’ve focused very heavily on, and a dedicated part of how we approach these opportunities and talk to customers. I appreciate that.

One more question then we got to a few Q&A’s from the audience. What’s the big thing in FinTech in FY24 from your perspective?

[00:31:43] Heiko: 2024. I need to out myself; I’m still a big believer in digital assets. Looking at Bitcoin this morning, we crossed the 1 trillion market cap again, which is great news. It’s a bit similar to the core banking infrastructure. It’s not the best analogy anyway. I think there is an emergence in institutional adoption of digital assets. This will result in more modern and professional digital asset infrastructure providers need to emerge.

I’m looking here for smart opportunities around infrastructure place, trading companies, custodies and the likes. In digital assets, it’s definitely one at least for me. It’s not for everybody.

[00:32:44] Myles: All right. We’ve got a few more minutes. Three questions at the moment are forthcoming. The first one’s for me, I can answer it, you don’t need to worry about this one. From Muhammad Ahi, can your CBS be deployed on prem? Do you have footprint in APAC region?

I’ll answer the first part of the question, Mohamed. Yes, Tuum has been deployed on prem. It can be deployed on prem, but we always ask our potential customers, why do you want to deploy on prem? That’s how we start the conversation. But we do understand the regulatory environments that are required. Some regulators in a lot of countries require it still to be on premise or in country, data sovereignty, etc. We get it. But Tuum does have a lot of flexibility.

As for APAC, no, we don’t. We are a UK and Europe focused organization. If you follow us, you would have seen we most recently opened an office in the UAE, and we are very much expanding into the Middle East and Africa. That’s our plan for the next 12 to 18 months. I have to say this because my investors are on the phone and they get very upset if I’ve told porcupines.

That being said though, we’re always happy to talk to people, and if the right opportunity arises and it makes sense, happy to have that conversation. But please feel free to reach out if you’d like to have a chat about that.

I’m going to be talking to Dan Feeney, and this is probably Heiko, you start, I can join in here. Where are legacy ERPs such as Oracle and SAP going with respect to breaking down silos and enabling real time data portability?

[00:34:22] Heiko: I’m not an expert to talk about that topic. Clearly the legacy players, SAP, Oracle, of course they need to remain competitive and think about how to extend their solutions. But out of experience, I would say if an organization you run on legacy It, yes, you can expand it and it will enable you to remain competitive to some extent. But you have already built out a lot of technology legacy debt in your organization, which makes it for yourself even more difficult to innovate. This is the typical innovators dilemma. SAP, Oracle, they will be there the next decade and they will generate a lot of money, but normally they can’t have the same type of innovation power a young start-up like Tuum has.

Myles, it’s over to you for the more tech type of answer.

[00:35:22] Myles: You hit the nail on the head with that one, Heiko. I think it’s technical debt. Those systems, particularly Oracle, SAP, are big. They’ve been built up over a lot of time. Those organizations are really definitely trying to jump the hurdle and build in their flexibility, but there’s a lot of challenge that they have because of the way their technology has been built over the past few years. I think they’re trying to certainly break it down.

Again, we all hear the term microservices, how can they isolate components and allow them to be more flexible? I agree with Heiko, they’re big organizations with lots of horsepower, fantastic customer bases. In some aspects, a lot of their product is very solid and very good. I think they just struggle a little bit, it’s like getting the Titanic to turn on a dime. Whereas the small organizations like Tuum and Fintechs have the ability to do a lot faster.

They’re definitely working on it, and they need to. But I think the speed that they can do that is probably a big challenge for them.

Anonymous attendee. No one wants to know who they are for this one, but Heiko, this is for you. Why don’t the big U.S. core banking players like Pfizer, the FIs, do better in Europe?

[00:36:39] Heiko: Do better than who?

[00:36:41] Myles: Just do better in Europe. I think if I read into this, they don’t have a very big foot in Europe. They dominate the U. S., they’ve stayed in the U. S., they have expanded out into Europe, in the U.K., but they certainly haven’t had success.

[00:37:00] Heiko: I can’t judge properly whether or not they actually have success in Europe and the level of revenues is. I don’t have this information. I think the U. S. market is humongous. It’s the big cradle for all core banking providers. If you have a high market share in the U. S.. this already helps you with very nice level of revenues.

Second, I think it’s a bit of different structures also in terms of when respective institutions have been built in terms of the growth profile. In Europe, we have a lot of IBM services here, but we also have a lot of SAP services. I think it’s a major market, and it’s not a market where one player is absolutely dominant. It’s a market that can serve many providers here. But I don’t have any specific insights.

[00:37:56] Myles: Always a pleasure. Great to have a chat like that. Thanks so much for your time today, and speak to everybody soon.

[00:38:03] Heiko: Myles, thanks so much for having me. It was really a pleasure. Speak soon.

[00:38:06] Myles: Thanks, Heiko. See you guys. Bye.

Get in touch to find out more.

Back to Blog

Don’t miss out!

Subscribe to Tuum’s monthly newsletter

Build, expand, and scale with Tuum

Write us a line and find out how to transform your business with us