For more than a century, banks controlled access to money. Whether someone wanted to buy a house, expand a business or finance a vehicle, the journey began at a bank. It assessed the borrower, set the terms and decided whether the transaction would proceed.
That relationship is changing. A car buyer may obtain financing through the manufacturer. An online merchant may receive working capital from the platform processing its sales. A retailer offers credit at checkout; a developer sells apartments on instalments. The customer may never meet a loan officer or know which institution supplied the capital.
This is more than another chapter in fintech. It is a shift in who controls the economics of lending. Banks may still provide the money, but increasingly, other businesses influence where it goes.
Banks retain powerful advantages in deposits, payments, regulation and risk management. But their historical control over the customer journey is no longer guaranteed.
Consider Shopify. At the end of June 2026, its regulatory filings showed approximately $2.43 billion in gross loans and merchant cash advances receivable. Shopify’s advantage is information. It observes merchants’ sales and trading performance directly, while traditional lenders often reconstruct that picture from financial statements, collateral and credit histories.
Better information does not abolish credit risk. Shopify’s net credit charge-offs rose to $107 million during the first half of 2026, compared with $60 million a year earlier. Its allowance for credit losses reached $242 million. Data may improve lending decisions, but it cannot repeal the credit cycle.
Walmart illustrates another division of responsibilities. Through OnePay, customers can access instalment financing at checkout, with repayment terms ranging from three to 36 months. Klarna handles credit eligibility and servicing, while OnePay integrates financing into Walmart’s shopping experience.
The distinction matters because the most valuable moment in lending may not be when money is disbursed, but when a customer decides to buy. Whoever controls that moment can influence the financing decision.
None of this is entirely new. Automobile manufacturers have operated finance businesses for decades. Equipment manufacturers finance machinery, and developers sell on instalments. What has changed is digital distribution, transaction-level data and sophisticated credit assessment. Financing has moved from a supporting activity to a competitive weapon.
Consider two manufacturers selling identical $100,000 machines. One requires immediate payment; the other offers three-year financing. The second may win even at a higher price because it solves two problems simultaneously: supplying the equipment and making the purchase affordable.
It may earn a commercial margin, financing income or an origination fee while securing a customer relationship extending beyond the sale.
Who funds the loan is a separate question. A business offering credit need not carry every loan on its balance sheet. It can partner with banks, establish a finance subsidiary, sell receivables or attract institutional investors.
Banks traditionally combined customer acquisition, underwriting, funding and risk management. The emerging model separates these functions. A platform understands the customer, a bank provides relatively inexpensive funding, and an investor acquires credit exposure without meeting the borrower.
For banks, the implications are significant. A bank can expand its loan portfolio while losing direct control of the customer relationship, becoming the wholesale financier behind another company’s brand.
That can remain profitable, but it changes competition. If retailers control customers, platforms possess transaction data and banks compete to supply financing, banks may increasingly compete on price and capacity rather than loyalty.
The danger is not irrelevance but commoditisation.
Yet customer ownership does not guarantee superior profitability. Banks retain advantages in deposits, liquidity management and regulatory infrastructure, particularly when financial conditions tighten.
The real contest is not simply over who owns the customer, but who captures the lending margin, provides the capital and absorbs losses when the credit cycle turns.
The model also has a darker side. Commercial companies are designed to sell; lenders must assess whether borrowers can repay. Retailers benefit when customers purchase more, while lenders suffer when borrowers take on unaffordable obligations.
When credit becomes a sales tool, the incentive to extend financing can overwhelm the incentive to exercise restraint.
Short-term data compounds the problem. Six months of strong sales reveal little about surviving a downturn. A developer reporting thousands of instalment bookings may simultaneously accumulate substantial collection risk.
Liquidity presents another danger. Businesses financing customers over several years need dependable funding. If defaults rise or banks withdraw credit facilities, otherwise viable companies can face financial pressure.
Credit risk does not disappear when lending moves beyond banks. It moves somewhere else.
The Financial Stability Board has highlighted vulnerabilities in nonbank financial intermediation, including leverage, interconnectedness and information gaps. Regulators must understand who ultimately carries the exposure.
For Pakistan, the opportunity could be substantial.
Our formal credit system struggles to reach smaller businesses lacking collateral, audited accounts or banking histories. Yet many possess years of commercial relationships with manufacturers, distributors and suppliers.
A dealer purchasing inventory monthly from a manufacturer may have a more reliable repayment record than its financial statements suggest.
The infrastructure is emerging. In April 2026, UBL and Fauree announced a digital supply-chain financing partnership linking working capital to verified invoices within corporate supplier and distributor networks.
Other collaborations involving Fauree and Pakistani banks demonstrate interest in transaction-based financing. Raqami Islamic Digital Bank has partnered with Haball on Shariah-compliant embedded supply-chain financing and announced a collaboration with Fauree to explore additional solutions.
These arrangements depend on sound underwriting and commercial adoption, but demonstrate how commercial networks can connect regulated lenders with borrowers.
Applications extend beyond retail. Agricultural suppliers could facilitate seasonal financing for farmers. Equipment manufacturers could structure credit around productive assets. Distributors could finance smaller dealers using verified trading histories.
Property deserves attention. Pakistani developers already manage substantial instalment receivables, often without the credit-risk reporting and prudential safeguards required of regulated lenders.
Partnerships with financial institutions could transform qualifying receivables into financeable assets, provided projects, borrowers and repayment streams meet appropriate underwriting standards.
Two reforms deserve consideration.
First, regulation should follow financial activity and risk rather than institutional labels alone. Consumer protection, responsible lending, data privacy and transparency should apply whether financing originates through a bank, retailer or commercial supplier.
Second, credit information systems should capture embedded financing obligations, subject to regulatory requirements. Borrowers should not accumulate liabilities across disconnected platforms without lenders recognising their total exposure.
For bank boards, the strategic question is uncomfortable. Should they keep investing heavily in direct customer acquisition, or become financing partners to businesses already maintaining millions of customer relationships?
Banks retain powerful advantages in deposits, payments, regulation and risk management. But their historical control over the customer journey is no longer guaranteed.
The financial system may not become less dependent on banks. It may simply become less visible to those who use it.
The next banking revolution may not be decided by who holds a licence or builds the best application, but by who controls the transaction that creates the need to borrow.
Banks have spent generations learning how to lend money. Their most serious challengers may be those who understand why customers need to borrow it.
The writer is a financial expert and can be reached at jawadsaleem.1982@ gmail.com. He tweets @JawadSaleem1982