Singapore's Digital Banking Customers Are Not Who You Think
Assembled is a Singapore-based qualitative and quantitative research agency led by Felicia Hu. With over 600 completed projects and access to a proprietary panel exceeding 100,000 members, Assembled specialises in uncovering the cultural and behavioural nuances that shape financial decision-making across Southeast Asia. Our work has been presented at MRS Research Live and ESOMAR Research World, and featured in the South China Morning Post. One lesson we have learned, project after project: when a Singaporean respondent says “can consider,” it almost always means no. This post draws on our financial services research practice in Singapore.
Singapore’s Digital Banking Customers Are Not Who You Think: What Focus Groups Reveal About the Trust Gap
25 March 2026
I walked past a GXS Bank pop-up at Raffles City last month — sleek booth, friendly staff, QR codes everywhere. A young couple scanned, nodded politely, and moved on. An older gentleman in business casual paused, read the standee about deposit insurance, then kept walking. Neither signed up. It was a scene I have watched repeat itself, in slightly different configurations, at malls across Singapore for the past two years.
Here is what makes this interesting (and, I think, commercially important): Singapore now has five licensed digital banks. Trust Bank has crossed one million customers. GXS Bank serves more than three million across the region. Yet together, these digital challengers racked up S$358.75 million in losses in 2024. The three incumbents — DBS, OCBC, UOB — booked S$25 billion in profit over the same period. Something is not adding up.
Actually, that’s not quite right. Something is adding up, but only if you look beneath the headline metrics. The adoption numbers are growing. The trust is not. Or at least, not at the same rate. And the gap between “I’d consider switching to a digital bank” and “I’ve moved my salary credit there” is where the real story lives — a story that surveys alone cannot tell you, but that focus groups reveal in sometimes uncomfortable clarity.
The Strategic Landscape
When the Monetary Authority of Singapore issued four digital banking licences between 2020 and 2022, the premise was straightforward: open the market, encourage innovation, serve the underbanked. Two Digital Full Bank licences went to GXS (a Grab-Singtel joint venture) and MariBank (backed by Sea Limited’s Shopee ecosystem). Two Digital Wholesale Bank licences went to ANEXT Bank (Ant Financial) and Green Link Digital Bank. Trust Bank, while technically operating under Standard Chartered’s existing full bank licence, functions as a digitally native entity in partnership with FairPrice Group.
The numbers tell a story of aggressive growth alongside stubborn losses. According to Fintech News Singapore’s analysis, GXS incurred a net loss of S$145.4 million in FY2024, with loans equalling only 18% of total deposits. MariBank posted a loss of S$51.3 million, with a loan-to-deposit ratio of just 7%. Most of their assets sit parked in government bonds — essentially, these banks are paying customers to hold their money while struggling to lend it out profitably. (You might be thinking: “That sounds like a business model problem, not a trust problem.” Hold that thought.)
Meanwhile, Singapore’s digital economy continues its upward march. The IMDA Singapore Digital Economy Report 2025 shows the digital economy now accounts for 18.6% of GDP, up from 14.9% in 2019. Digital adoption among enterprises stands at 95.1%. Singaporeans are not digitally hesitant — they transact, invest, and communicate online with sophistication. Only 13% of point-of-sale transactions used cash in 2024. So the issue is not digital literacy. It appears that the issue is something far more specific: the willingness to entrust primary banking relationships to institutions that do not have a 50-year track record, a branch on Orchard Road, or a name your parents recognise.
A 2024 banking trust survey by the Association of Banks in Singapore found that overall trust in the banking industry remained high, with an Edelman Net Trust Score of 68. But that aggregate figure obscures a crucial detail: trust accrues disproportionately to incumbents. When we run our own qualitative research through Assembled’s fieldwork, we consistently find that respondents distinguish sharply between “trusting digital banking features” and “trusting a digital bank.”
Questions Worth Asking
If you are a product strategist at a digital bank, a brand manager at an incumbent trying to understand the competitive threat, or a regulator monitoring the ecosystem, the surface-level adoption metrics will not give you what you need. The questions that matter sit deeper.
- The digital-first consumer: They signed up for Trust Bank the week it launched, moved S$10,000 into a GXS savings pocket, and use MariBank for the cashback. But is this loyalty, or is this rate-shopping behaviour that evaporates the moment an incumbent matches the offer? What would it take for them to move their salary there?
- The cautious saver: A PMET aged 42 with S$150,000 across DBS and OCBC. She’s heard of Trust Bank from her FairPrice receipts. She knows the interest rate is attractive. She has not opened an account. Why not? And more importantly — what would she need to hear, see, or experience before she would?
- The brand strategist at an incumbent: DBS PayLah! has normalised digital banking within a trusted brand. How do customers cognitively distinguish between “digital features from my bank” and “a digital bank”? Is the distinction eroding, or hardening?
- The regulator: The licences were meant to expand access and competition. Are they doing that? Or are digital banks simply skimming the most price-sensitive segment while leaving the structural barriers to financial inclusion untouched?
- The household decision-maker: In a dual-income household, who decides where the emergency fund sits? If one partner wants to try a digital bank and the other insists on DBS, how does that negotiation play out — and what does it tell us about trust formation at the household level?
These are not questions a survey can answer well. A Likert scale captures attitude. It does not capture the pause before someone says “I would consider it,” or the way they unconsciously glance at their phone (where their DBS app lives) while evaluating whether they trust a bank that exists only on that same phone. This is where in-depth interviews and focus group discussions earn their keep.
How We Uncover Answers
For a study of this nature, I think the right approach combines structured focus groups with targeted in-depth interviews. The focus groups surface the social dynamics of trust — how people perform confidence or scepticism in front of peers, which arguments sway the group, which objections survive collective scrutiny. The IDIs go deeper into personal financial anxiety, which most Singaporeans will not disclose in a group setting (understandably so).
Participant Targeting: Behavioural Archetypes
Rather than recruiting purely by demographics, we build participant profiles around behavioural archetypes. At least, that’s my reading of what works best in financial services research — demographics alone produce groups that are technically diverse but behaviourally homogeneous.
The Cautious Switcher: Has a digital bank account but keeps less than S$5,000 there. Primary banking remains with an incumbent. Uses the digital bank for specific promotions. Aged 30–55, typically PMET. The key question for this archetype: what is the threshold event that would trigger a deeper commitment?
The Digital-First Millennial: Under 35, comfortable with pure-digital financial products (crypto, robo-advisors, BNPL). May already use a digital bank as their primary account. The question here is not “will they adopt?” but “will they stay?” — and whether their trust model is transferable to older cohorts.
The Legacy Loyalist: Aged 45+, relationship with DBS/OCBC/UOB spanning decades. May use digital banking features within their incumbent bank but has not opened a digital bank account. Not opposed to technology — opposed to perceived risk. (And there is a distinction there that matters enormously for product positioning.)
The Pragmatic Opportunist: Has accounts at two or more digital banks purely for rate arbitrage. No emotional attachment. Will leave when the promotions end. Understanding this archetype helps digital banks distinguish genuine adoption from subsidised trial.
Cultural Interpretation
Actually, that’s not quite right to call these purely “behavioural” archetypes — they are culturally inflected. In Singapore, trust in financial institutions is entangled with broader narratives about government backing, national identity, and generational experience. A respondent who says “I trust DBS because it’s our bank” is making a statement that no amount of competitive interest rates can directly counter. Our research practice is built around decoding these layers — what a respondent says, what they mean, and what they cannot articulate because it operates below the level of conscious reasoning. This is the same interpretive work we describe in our analysis of the say-do gap in Singapore consumer research.
From Theory to Practice
When we synthesise findings from this kind of research, we build frameworks that translate qualitative insight into strategic action. Two frameworks have proven particularly useful in financial services engagements (though I should note they are always adapted to the specific client context — off-the-shelf frameworks have a way of flattening the very nuance you paid to uncover).
Digital Trust Assessment Matrix
| Low Perceived Benefit | High Perceived Benefit | |
|---|---|---|
| Low Perceived Risk | Indifferent Zone — “I know about it but have no reason to switch.” Largest segment. Needs activation triggers (life events, peer endorsement). | Rational Adopter Zone — “The rates are better and I don’t see much risk.” Early adopters, rate-sensitive. Vulnerable to churn when promotions end. |
| High Perceived Risk | Rejection Zone — “Why would I risk my money for no real upside?” Hardest to convert. Trust deficit compounds perceived lack of value. | Tension Zone — “I can see the benefit but I’m worried.” Most strategically valuable segment. Conversion depends on trust-building, not feature promotion. |
The Tension Zone is where I think most of the commercial opportunity sits for digital banks in Singapore right now. These are consumers who understand the value proposition intellectually but have not resolved the emotional calculus. Focus groups reveal what sits inside that tension — and more usefully, what resolves it.
Banking Relationship Typology
| Typology | Primary Bank | Digital Bank Role | Trust Signal | Migration Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fortress | Single incumbent | None or ignored | “My parents bank here” | Major service failure at incumbent |
| Satellite | Incumbent (salary, savings) | Side account for promos | SDIC coverage confirmed | Sustained rate differential + peer adoption |
| Portfolio | Split across 2–3 banks | Equal to incumbent | Product quality + UX | Superior product bundle (invest + save + spend) |
| Nomadic | Whichever has best rate | Primary or rotating | Promotions and cashback | Always migrating; no loyalty to build on |
From our experience analysing focus group data in Singapore, the Satellite typology is the most prevalent among PMETs aged 35–55 — the demographic with the highest savings balances and (therefore) the highest switching cost. Converting Satellites into Portfolio-type relationships is, it appears that, the central strategic challenge for every digital bank operating in Singapore today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do Singaporean consumers trust incumbent banks more than digital banks?
The primary driver is familiarity compounded over decades. DBS, OCBC, and UOB have physical branches, ATM networks, and — crucially — a perceived government-adjacent status (DBS was originally the Development Bank of Singapore, a state initiative). Trust Bank and GXS lack this institutional memory. In our focus groups, respondents consistently cite “what happens if something goes wrong” as the core anxiety — not whether the app works, but whether there is a person they can speak to and a place they can go. The Singapore Deposit Insurance Scheme covers digital bank deposits up to S$100,000, which helps rationally but does not resolve the emotional dimension of trust.
Are digital banks in Singapore actually failing, or just growing slowly?
They are growing — Trust Bank reached one million customers by early 2025, and GXS serves over three million regionally. But growth in customer acquisition has not translated proportionally into profitable banking relationships. The loan-to-deposit ratios remain very low (18% at GXS, 7% at MariBank), which means these banks are accumulating deposits faster than they can deploy them as revenue-generating loans. Fitch Ratings notes this is within expectations for start-up banks four to five years in, but the Singapore retail banking market is, by most accounts, fiercely competitive. For context on how stated consumer interest can diverge from actual behaviour, see our analysis of the say-do gap in wealth management research.
What research methods best uncover the trust gap in financial services?
Quantitative surveys establish the scale of the gap — how many consumers say they would consider a digital bank versus how many actually use one as their primary institution. But the “why” requires qualitative methods. Focus group discussions reveal how trust operates socially — the peer effects, the family negotiations, the way confidence is performed or withheld. In-depth interviews access the private financial anxieties that shape behaviour. The combination, sequenced thoughtfully, gives you both the pattern and the texture. Our guide to market research in Singapore covers this methodology in detail.
How does Singapore’s cultural context affect digital banking adoption?
Significantly. Singapore’s financial culture is shaped by a strong savings ethic, high homeownership aspirations, and a deep (often implicit) trust in government-linked institutions. When a respondent says DBS is “safe,” they are not simply evaluating its balance sheet — they are invoking a broader narrative about Singapore’s financial stability and governance. Digital banks cannot replicate this narrative through marketing alone. Our research experience in Singapore suggests that trust in financial services is built through cultural proximity and sustained presence, not feature superiority.
What is the ideal sample for a digital banking trust study in Singapore?
We recommend recruiting across behavioural archetypes rather than pure demographics: Cautious Switchers (have digital bank account, keep it secondary), Digital-First users (primary digital bank relationship), Legacy Loyalists (no digital bank account despite digital literacy), and Pragmatic Opportunists (rate-chasers with no commitment). Four to six focus groups of six to eight participants each, supplemented by 12–15 in-depth interviews targeting high-net-worth Satellites and household financial decision-makers. You can request a tailored quote from our team.
Methodology note: This analysis draws on publicly available data from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Singapore Department of Statistics, the Infocomm Media Development Authority, and industry reports. Qualitative observations reflect patterns from Assembled’s financial services research practice in Singapore. For a complementary perspective on behavioural inconsistency in financial decision-making, see our analysis of the say-do gap in Singapore wealth management research.
Understanding Why Singapore’s Digital Banking Customers Trust Some Platforms and Avoid Others
Assembled’s financial services research combines focus groups, in-depth interviews, and cultural interpretation to reveal what drives — and blocks — trust in Singapore’s evolving banking landscape. Whether you are a digital bank seeking deeper adoption or an incumbent tracking the competitive threat, we design research that moves beyond stated preference to actual behaviour.
Request a Research Consultation
