Chocolate Finance has positioned itself deliberately outside the traditional banking and insurance model, framing its proposition as an asset management business for customers who want a “solid, decent” home for surplus cash and longer-term savings, without the friction, cost and bias often found in legacy financial institutions.

Reflecting on the firm’s first year of operations, its response to large-scale withdrawals and its next phase of growth, founder and chief executive Walter de Oude and chief investment officer Benjamin Tan described a business model built around segregated client assets, low duration fixed income portfolios and a single-portfolio philosophy that prioritises simplicity, liquidity and cost discipline. According to de Oude and Tan, the firm has so far delivered returns that they believe are competitive relative to bank fixed deposit rates.

The discussion also covered the launch of new products such as Stash and Splash, expansion into business accounts, overseas growth in Hong Kong and UAE and the potential for selective application of artificial intelligence (AI) across advice, operations and investment research.

Chocolate Finance’s positioning is shaped by the belief that most customers are not seeking optimisation or tactical allocation decisions, but reassurance that their money is being managed sensibly over time. De Oude repeatedly returned to the idea of providing a “solid, decent” place for money, balancing return, volatility and cost without requiring constant attention or financial expertise. This framing sets the tone for how products are designed and how success is defined internally.

“Money should not be intimidating, scary, boring, overwhelming, complicated or stressful. It should be simple and happy,” De Oude said. He reinforced this perspective by noting that a large proportion of individuals are uncomfortable making investment decisions and are often paralysed by too much choice. In that context, Chocolate Finance’s emphasis on simplicity and uniformity is intended to reduce friction and behavioural error, rather than to compete on breadth of product or tactical flexibility.

Rethinking savings through an asset-management capital structure

De Oude explained that Chocolate Finance was created to address what he sees as a mismatch between how customers use money and how banks and insurers are structured. In his view, when customers place money with a bank or insurance company, that money becomes a liability on the institution’s balance sheet, requiring capital buffers that inevitably dilute customer returns. He contrasted this with Chocolate Finance’s asset management structure, where client funds are held in segregated, ring-fenced accounts and managed on behalf of customers rather than absorbed into a balance sheet.

According to de Oude, this structure reduces the need for capital to be held against customer assets, allowing a greater share of returns to flow back to clients. He stressed that Chocolate Finance does not earn income until customer returns are delivered, framing this as a deliberate alignment of incentives. The objective is not to outperform markets aggressively but to provide a place where customers can earn better-than-bank yields with very low volatility and high liquidity, resulting in peace of mind and investment ease.

He also argued that the distinction between banks, insurers and asset managers is largely historical rather than functional. While the insurance company he founded, Singlife, demonstrated that an insurer could behave like a bank, de Oude noted that capital inefficiencies remained. Chocolate Finance’s approach, he said, is to “be better than a bank”, using modern technology and an asset management licence to provide core functions such as liquidity and yield delivery in a more efficient way.

De Oude further explained that segregating client assets fundamentally changes the risk relationship between the firm and its customers. Because customer money is not lent onto a balance sheet, there is no reliance on deposit insurance schemes or capital protection mechanisms to maintain confidence. In his view, this structural separation allows customers to retain ownership of their assets regardless of the firm’s own corporate circumstances.

He also emphasised that this structure enables Chocolate Finance to remove layers of historical inefficiency that persist largely because of regulation designed around legacy models. By starting as an asset manager rather than retrofitting a bank or insurance framework, the firm can design its operations, technology and cost base around client outcomes rather than regulatory accommodation.

Cash, Stash and Splash as behavioural buckets

A central organising framework for Chocolate Finance’s product strategy is the idea that customers naturally hold money in three behavioural buckets: cash for everyday cash stability, stash for longer-term passive growth and splash for higher-risk investing or speculation. De Oude was clear that Chocolate Finance is focused primarily on the first two.

The current SGD and USD cash proposition is designed to deliver a consistently higher yield than bank fixed deposits while maintaining very low volatility and daily liquidity. De Oude emphasised that customers typically keep transactional balances with banks, while surplus cash migrates to higher-yielding but still safe alternatives. Once moved, he noted, such balances tend to be “sticky”.

De Oude described “low volatility” in relative rather than absolute terms, anchored in very short duration, high-quality fixed income rather than capital guarantees. In his description, the objective is to reduce price fluctuation meaningfully compared with longer-duration or risk assets while preserving daily accessibility.

Stash represents the next layer: a longer-term, passive savings product aimed at customers who do not want to actively manage portfolios or make frequent allocation decisions. De Oude described a target return range in the high single digits, paired with tight volatility control, income generation and very low cost. The intention is to create a product that customers can hold for decades without needing to rebalance or chase trends.

Splash, by contrast, is deliberately not Chocolate Finance’s focus. De Oude said customers who want to trade equities or speculate can already do so via existing platforms, often at higher risk and cost. Chocolate Finance’s role, in his view, is to serve the majority who are uncomfortable with active investing and are poorly served by commission-driven advice.

De Oude also stressed that the three-bucket framework is intended as a behavioural guide rather than a rigid allocation model. Customers are not asked to choose portfolios or express risk preferences; instead, the structure reflects how people already think about money in practice. Chocolate Finance’s role is to optimise the cash and stash buckets for people who prefer clarity and predictability, while leaving higher-risk decisions entirely to platforms designed for that purpose.

Lessons from scale, withdrawals and operational resilience

Reflecting on the firm’s first year of operations, de Oude noted that Chocolate Finance had reached around 100,000 users and built assets under management (AUM) in excess of SGD1 billion (approximately $745 million), a scale that tested both systems and processes. He highlighted a period of significant withdrawals as a defining stress test, demonstrating the importance of customer communications in addition to robust and strong governance and technology.

According to de Oude, the firm’s infrastructure functioned as designed, customers received their expected returns, withdrawals were processed smoothly, and client assets remained secure despite the crunch. He credited the technology architecture and operational discipline for allowing Chocolate Finance to emerge with strong customer satisfaction metrics, including high app store ratings.

He also emphasised cost consciousness as a cultural principle, describing how the firm avoided expensive branding and offices in its early stages. The focus, he said, was on building trust through product performance rather than appearances, reinforcing the broader theme that simplicity and discipline underpin the business model.

The withdrawal episode also reinforced the importance of liquidity-first portfolio construction. De Oude noted that maintaining very short duration and high-quality instruments is not simply a defensive choice but a prerequisite for delivering daily accessibility at scale. The experience validated the firm’s emphasis on designing products that can withstand stress without forcing behavioural restrictions on customers.

He also linked operational resilience to trust accumulation over time. In his view, customers judge financial institutions less by promised returns than by how they behave under pressure. Successfully navigating a period of heavy withdrawals without disruption strengthened confidence in the firm’s underlying model and reinforced its commitment to transparency and safeguards.

Business accounts and liquidity-first design

Beyond individual customers, Chocolate Finance is extending its proposition to business accounts in the second quarter of 2026, targeting SMEs and companies that value liquidity, certainty and yield on operating balances. Tan explained that businesses face similar challenges to individuals, with excess cash often sitting idle in low-yield accounts.

Business accounts are structured to offer instant withdrawal, no lock-in and a yield profile aligned with short-duration fixed income portfolios. The design reflects the same capital light, asset-management-led structure as the consumer offering, ensuring that liquidity is preserved while returns remain meaningfully above bank alternatives.

Both de Oude and Tan emphasised that the simplicity of the model extends to businesses, avoiding complex tiering or portfolio choices and instead offering a single, transparent return profile.

Tan framed business accounts as a logical extension rather than a diversification of strategy. Businesses, he said, face the same trade-off between yield and accessibility as individuals, but often with greater sensitivity to cashflow timing and certainty. The aim is to provide a place for operating balances that does not require businesses to lock up funds or accept unnecessary complexity.

He added that maintaining a single-portfolio approach for both individual and business customers simplifies governance, risk management and communication. By avoiding differentiated portfolios or tiered structures, the firm can ensure that liquidity, pricing and performance expectations remain consistent across customer segments.

Investment construction, cost discipline and portfolio uniformity

Tan outlined the investment philosophy underpinning Chocolate Finance’s products, emphasising that all customers receive the same portfolio and the same return. This, he said, eliminates behavioural errors and choice paralysis while allowing the investment team to focus on optimising a single portfolio for liquidity, credit quality and duration.

In Singapore and Hong Kong, the portfolios are built primarily using institutional-class fixed income funds from established managers, avoiding retail share classes that embed distribution fees. Tan highlighted the long-term impact of fees on compounded returns, noting that even small differences in annual costs can materially affect outcomes over decades.

He explained that the focus is on forward-looking yield rather than chasing past performance, with careful management of duration and credit quality to ensure that daily yield targets remain sustainable through market cycles. The goal is not to maximise returns but to deliver consistency with minimal volatility.

Tan also highlighted that institutional-class access is central to keeping costs structurally low rather than negotiating marginal fee reductions. By avoiding distribution rebates and retail share classes entirely, Chocolate Finance removes an entire layer of cost that typically compounds over time to the detriment of end investors.

He further noted that portfolio uniformity allows the investment team to focus on execution quality rather than portfolio differentiation. Risk controls, liquidity management and credit monitoring can be applied consistently, reducing operational complexity while improving transparency for customers who know exactly how their money is being managed.

Overseas expansion and market selection

Chocolate Finance has begun its overseas expansion with Hong Kong and plans to enter Dubai by the first half of 2026, with a third market under consideration thereafter. Tan described Hong Kong as a natural extension due to regulatory and structural similarities with Singapore, while Dubai was selected for its currency alignment, regulatory openness and suitability for the firm’s capital structure.

He noted that licensing remains the primary constraint to faster expansion, rather than technology or product readiness. The firm’s approach is to replicate its existing capabilities rather than reinvent products for each market, ensuring consistency and operational efficiency.

De Oude emphasised that overseas expansion is not driven by a desire to chase growth for its own sake, but by confidence that the same structural advantages apply across similar regulatory environments. Markets with compatible licensing regimes and currency frameworks allow Chocolate Finance to deploy its model without diluting core principles around segregation, liquidity and cost.

He also made clear that expansion pacing is deliberately conservative. Rather than launching broadly and adapting later, the firm prefers to resolve regulatory, operational and custody considerations fully before scaling, reducing execution risk and preserving customer trust.

AI as enabler, not replacement

Both were careful to frame AI as an enabler rather than a substitute for investment discipline. De Oude argued that AI has the potential to transform financial advice by removing bias, lowering cost and providing more holistic guidance to customers who currently rely on conflicted sources.

Tan explained that, at present, AI plays a limited role in fixed income portfolio construction due to data constraints in over-the-counter bond markets. However, AI is increasingly used for research support, operational efficiency and internal replication of roles, allowing a relatively small team to manage a large and growing asset base.

Looking ahead, Tan suggested that AI-driven investment models may become more relevant as Chocolate Finance expands into manufacturing products in new markets, particularly where broader asset classes are involved. Even then, he emphasised that guardrails and human oversight remain essential.

De Oude was particularly critical of traditional financial advice models, arguing that commission structures and product incentives distort recommendations in ways that are difficult for customers to detect. He sees AI as a way to surface more neutral guidance by aggregating information across a customer’s financial situation without being tied to product distribution economics.

At the same time, both speakers cautioned against over-automating judgement. While AI can process data and improve efficiency, investment decisions still require clearly defined objectives and constraints. In Chocolate Finance’s model, AI is intended to support discipline and consistency rather than introduce complexity or opacity.

A deliberate definition of success

Concluding the discussion, de Oude was explicit that Chocolate Finance does not measure success primarily by growth or market share. Instead, he framed the firm’s mission around creating products he would be comfortable recommending to family members: solutions that exceed expectations and deliver delight through decent returns, low volatility and low cost, allowing customers to “sleep better at night”,

He reiterated that Chocolate Finance is not trying to beat markets or replace all financial services, but to provide a better alternative for the large proportion of people who want simplicity, alignment and fairness in how their money is managed. In his view, if that objective is met consistently, scale will follow naturally.

De Oude also described personal alignment as a key internal benchmark. He repeatedly returned to the idea that he invests his own money according to the same principles applied to customers, preferring passive, low-volatility exposure over constant decision-making. This alignment acts as a safeguard against drifting toward more aggressive or fashionable strategies.

He contrasted this approach with models that prioritise short-term performance or product proliferation, arguing that such strategies often increase volatility and cost without improving long-term outcomes for most customers. Chocolate Finance’s restraint, in his view, is intentional rather than conservative.

De Oude framed the firm’s ambition as building products that customers can rely on for decades, not quarters, with durability as the clearest measure of success. If customers can leave their money in place, worry less about markets and still earn a reasonable return, he considers the model to be working as intended.