Welcome, Rob. Great to have you with us. To kick things off, can you walk us through your career journey from Barclays to Mast? What were some of the pivotal moments that led you to co-found your own company?

Thanks! Sure. I joined Barclays as a graduate after university, on a scheme designed to give you exposure to different areas of the bank so you could figure out where you wanted to work.

I didn’t particularly enjoy my ‘rotations’ but I networked and shadowed different teams to eventually find a role to move into after 2 years. I really wanted to be essentially a relationship manager to large corporates.

After the rotations, I secured that role in a great team. I was given a good amount of responsibility, had my own clients, and was managing relationships. On paper, it looked ideal.

But after about 12 months, I realised I didn’t want to do that job for the next 30 years. Barclays offers a lot of flexibility, and you can move around the business, but this would have been my fourth role there, and none of them had really grabbed me.

That’s when I started looking at early-stage startups, typically pre-Series A or just post-Series A. At the same time, I knew I really wanted to build something myself. I’d always wanted to start my own business but never had a clear idea of what that would be.

My mum once told me that most people who start a business do so after working for someone else and thinking, "I could do this better." I didn’t feel exactly that way about Barclays, but I had noticed some of the tech we were using wasn’t great. Even though I wasn’t building that tech myself, I could hear the feedback and see the issues.

I also knew I couldn’t start something alone. I didn’t have any connections in the startup world. So, I applied to Entrepreneur First and Antler. They’re both known as talent investors. They pay you a stipend for around 10 weeks while you form a team, develop an idea, and pitch it. If they like what you’re working on, you get funding to launch the company.

That’s how Mast was born. I met my co-founders, Henry and Joy, through that process.

It’s exciting to hear how everything came together. You mentioned rotating through different teams at Barclays - did those experiences help you identify a specific challenge or problem to solve? Or did the idea for Mast come together more organically later on with Henry and Joy?

I think the core problem was something I already understood from my time at Barclays. It had to do with the quality of mortgage applications submitted by brokers.

Applications that came from brokers took a lot longer to get approved than ones submitted by in-branch mortgage advisors. My theory was that in-branch advisors know the lender’s policy inside and out. It’s their full-time job, so they don’t waste time submitting cases that won’t work.

Brokers, on the other hand, are dealing with multiple lenders. There’s no way they can stay fully up to date with every policy and product change. So, they’ll often submit applications that don’t quite meet criteria or send in multiple speculative ones. That creates a lot of downstream work for underwriters.

The idea was that if you could give brokers the same level of policy insight that in-house advisors have, they’d be able to submit much higher quality applications.

Another key moment came when I was working with a product manager on launching a product to support a new mortgage scheme, I think it rent to own in Wales. We had the policy written up and the product ready to go. Then the question came: how do we get the mortgage origination system to support this?

I asked what we needed to do, and it turned out we just needed to add a tick box to identify this type of application. The problem was that it would take 12 months or something silly to make that change.

That completely blew my mind. We were essentially talking about adding a checkbox to a form, and it would take a year.

So, these were the kinds of problems I saw: lenders struggling with poor quality applications and finding it incredibly difficult to make even simple changes to their systems. Those were the pain points we set out to fix.

Absolutely.

And what the product looks like almost doesn’t matter. The real question is, does it solve the problem? Are those the two biggest pain points for a mortgage lender?

Exactly. And what you just said is something we hear all the time. There’s also the issue of communication between brokers and lenders, and how they share and process information. That challenge is a big part of the problem.

So, you launched Mast, and now you’re the Chief Client Officer. At a fast-growing fintech like Mast, what does a typical day look like for you? Are there areas you're particularly focused on now, maybe even things that keep you up at night?

I’m going to give you the most clichéd answer, but it’s true. Every day looks a little different. That said, there are some consistent themes in what I do.

A big part of my role is making sure our product team and our clients are working well together. That means ensuring we understand each client’s needs and that our delivery is on track. With new clients, I’m often closely involved in gathering requirements and managing the implementation.

There’s quite a bit of project management involved too. I’m usually the main point of contact for lenders during onboarding, and I also handle the ongoing relationship. That includes monthly check-ins, service reviews, tracking change requests, and making sure we’re meeting all our SLAs. I’ll also jump in on customer support when needed.

Then there’s the leadership side of the role, which is about shaping strategy and helping set direction for what we work on next. I’m also involved in sales. So, if you’ve ever received a cold LinkedIn message from me inviting you to a demo, I’m sorry but it’s part of the job.

I attend events, meet new people, run most of our product demos for prospective clients, and respond to all the RFPs we get as well.

That’s lovely. One thing that must be particularly interesting in your role is being so close to clients and running demos. You get instant feedback on what you’re building, what’s working, what’s not, what clients are thinking about that you might not have considered. That must be a huge upside of being part of a fast-moving fintech like Mast, especially compared to somewhere like Barclays. It’s such a different environment when you think about the size and speed of big organisations versus smaller ones. It must be a fascinating shift.

It really is. What I like most about working in a small company is how un-siloed everything feels. And how quickly you can get things done. That part is just great.

The biggest shift for me, coming from a big organisation, was how disconnected everything used to feel. At Barclays, for example, the tech team was based about 200 miles away. Before COVID, I never met most of them in person. If I wanted to know what someone looked like, I had to find them in the internal directory. That was the only way to put a face to a name as we all just spoke on the phone.

So, if you needed something changed, it was a phone call. Everything felt distant and a bit fragmented. I’d be trying to fix something in the lending policy, and someone in Glasgow would be saying, “We can’t do that, because it’ll affect my team in this way.” And you just felt miles apart, both physically and in terms of understanding.

Then I joined a startup where everyone is either in the same room or just a video call away. It completely changed the dynamic. People feel closer. Relationships are easier to build. That’s been really refreshing.

And the other thing that really blew my mind was those first few months after we started building the product. I’d never been a tech product manager before, but at the start I was basically the only one. I stayed in that role for a couple of years, writing tickets and figuring things out as we went.

The first time I wrote out a product ticket and someone built it, and I could use the feature, that felt like magic. I remember thinking, “I just described what I wanted, and now it exists.” It was like a black box. You put something in, and then a week later, this thing appears, and it does what you hoped it would. That really stuck with me.

‍That really is amazing. And I imagine working so closely with developers brings a real sense of momentum. You’re able to take an idea, something quite ambitious, and shape it into a live product. That must be a great feeling.

It is. It must be similar to the buzz people get when they design a physical product and finally see the first sample. There’s something special about turning a concept into something tangible. Whether it’s a physical object or a piece of software, that moment always feels a bit surreal.

Let’s touch on how things have evolved since you launched Mast. You mentioned the pain points you saw at Barclays, like poor application quality. But since going to market, have you uncovered new problems? And how has that influenced how Mast positions itself and develops its product?

Yes. Initially, we were focused on improving application quality. We thought if brokers submitted better cases, lenders could operate much more efficiently. So, our early efforts were geared toward building a broker portal that would help with that.

But as we spent more time in the industry, we started to realise that smaller lenders often rely on their origination systems to provide that portal. They weren’t likely to adopt a separate one. That made us step back and think more broadly about the full mortgage journey.

One problem that kept coming up was how slow and rigid some lenders' systems were. Many were still using on-premises software that hadn’t been updated in years. They couldn’t make changes quickly, and they felt stuck.

That became the real opportunity for us. We wanted to be the kind of partner who could move quickly, respond to their needs, and give them the flexibility they weren’t getting elsewhere. Unlike other issues, this wasn’t something you could solve just by hiring more people. It was baked into the systems themselves.

That’s why service quality is such a core part of what we offer. We take pride in being responsive and easy to work with. And as we’ve spoken to more lenders, we’ve uncovered pain points across the board - from sales and BDMs to operations and underwriting.

Of course, we can’t do everything at once, so it becomes a matter of prioritising. We look for the areas where we can deliver the most value. There are one or two parts of the platform right now where we know a few smart changes would make a big difference. And often, it’s during a demo where that becomes clear. Someone will ask, “How do I do this?” and we realise the experience isn’t as intuitive as it could be. That’s usually our cue to dig in and improve it.

Right, and I think that’s exactly why it’s so powerful to be a startup today. You can move quickly, stay close to real user problems, and build what’s needed instead of just what seems useful on paper.

You touched on this already, but if you had to give me the elevator pitch, what makes Mast different from traditional loan origination systems?

Great question.

Mast is built from the ground up to be flexible and agile. That mindset shapes everything we do, from how we work to the service we provide. It means we can move fast and respond to our clients' needs, even as those needs evolve.

With most origination systems, by the time they’re delivered, the original requirements are already outdated. Things have changed. New products have launched, or regulations have shifted. What makes us different is our ability to adapt quickly and incorporate those changes in a way that’s seamless for the lender.

Another thing I really value is our policy engine. It gives brokers real-time feedback on the quality of their applications. That was the original pain point we set out to solve, and I think we’ve done a great job with it. The feedback we get from lenders consistently highlights that the applications they receive through Mast are of much higher quality.

So for me, the two biggest things that set Mast apart are our speed and flexibility, and the way we help improve application quality through meaningful policy feedback. That’s where we’re really delivering value.

Those are two important strengths to have. So, two questions off the back of that. First, we're seeing a growing need for structured data flows and automation in the mortgage space. That ties into a lot of what you’ve been talking about. How does Mast approach this, and where do you think the biggest gains are?

This is a timely question because we've just wrapped up a major project focused on restructuring how data is stored within the platform.

We're moving toward a model where data can be easily exchanged and accessed from one central place. That shift is going to make it much simpler for us to plug in new integrations, change form layouts, introduce new policy prompts, and export data more efficiently. We’ve spent a huge amount of time investing in the foundations so that everything we build on top can be faster and much more stable.

This kind of setup is essential if you want to support real automation or AI tools in the future, the groundwork is now in place to build out more and more advanced technology here over the next few years. That foundation work has been a crucial step.

As for where the biggest gains lie, tools like Sikoia are going to make a huge difference for lenders. They help turn broker-submitted data into something that’s far more digestible. And thanks to the way we’re structuring data, we can now take that information and make it usable much faster than before.

I also think we’ll see a shift away from traditional application forms for brokers. We’re looking at how we can use the same technology to streamline that process. Imagine a broker uploading a fact find, and instead of manually re-entering everything, we use a tool or an AI model to parse that document and automatically populate the case data. That would eliminate most of the form-filling and just leave a few final fields to confirm.

It would make life easier for brokers and make lenders more attractive to work with. Plus, you end up with data that’s already backed by documentation, which simplifies the rest of the underwriting journey.

Absolutely. That’s something we’ve been exploring at Sikoia too. Automation and AI offer so much value, but it’s often those small manual tasks, like double-keying, that still slow everything down. Removing them can make a huge difference. I know you’ve touched on this already, but since we recently partnered to integrate our document processing solution into Mast’s workflow, how do you see that supporting your mission? What kind of value do you think it brings?

It’s a strong fit. For us, it’s all about helping lenders operate more efficiently and making their processes easier to manage. Integrating your document processing capabilities means we can give lenders a clearer, more structured view of the information brokers are providing.

And as you said, it’s not just about collecting data - it’s about making sure that data isn’t siloed. The value comes from bringing everything together in one place and making it easy to act on.

The second part of that is removing as much low-value work as possible. Underwriters should be focused on making lending decisions. They shouldn’t be spending their time rechecking documents or validating whether brokers have filled everything in correctly. That’s not where their value lies.

By taking that manual work off their plate, lenders can process more applications and deliver a better service to their customers, whether that’s members, borrowers, or partners.

And then there’s the bigger picture too. Not having to constantly jump between systems reduces errors, speeds things up, and makes the whole experience smoother. For us, it just makes sense. If you can remove friction from the process, why wouldn’t you?

Absolutely. And speaking to people in the market, especially early on, there was some hesitation around automation and AI. People were nervous about being replaced or made redundant by the technology. But I think your point is spot on. It’s really about giving underwriters their time and focus back. Letting them spend more time on valuable, human work, rather than repetitive admin that doesn’t make the best use of their skills.

Exactly. Underwriters shouldn’t be spending hours checking documents or copying data across systems. They should be using their expertise to make good decisions, speak with brokers, and dealing with complex edge cases. That’s what they’re good at, and what’s rewarding for them.

Looking ahead a bit, with so much already in motion, what are you most excited about in the mortgage space? That could be a tech trend, a regulatory shift, or just a broader market opportunity.

Good question.

The tech trends are clear at this point. There’s a lot happening, but nothing that has completely caught me off guard. The direction of travel towards AI has been visible for a while.

What I find more interesting is the market opportunity. A lot of lenders are focused on how to make mortgages more affordable for first-time buyers. That has led to a wave of creative product innovation, which is great to see. Lenders like Gen H are doing interesting work, and we’re seeing things like enhanced loan-to-income multiples and longer-term fixed rates becoming more common. The variety of products has really grown.

But what I’d really like to see, and this is less about tech and more about the bigger picture, is more housebuilding in the UK. That, more than anything, would help the mortgage market. More homes mean more movement, more first time buyers getting on the housing ladder, more transactions, and more competition between lenders. Selfishly, that’s good for us too.

You’re allowed to say that!

It’s true though. And another thing I’d love to see, although I’m not sure it will happen, is a reduction in stamp duty. Anything that encourages more people to move would be a win across the board. It would free up housing stock for first-time buyers, encourage downsizing, and create a healthier, more active property market.

That would help with older home owners downsize releasing value in the equity they have built up in their home , which in turn supports economic growth, and create more business for mortgage lenders. Even though we’re not a lender ourselves, increased volume benefits the whole ecosystem.

Absolutely. That’s such an important point. And probably one for policymakers to take seriously. But yes, a big question, and one for people far more qualified than me to tackle.

Exactly.

Last question. What advice would you give someone working in a traditional institution who’s thinking about making the jump to fintech or starting something of their own?

My honest answer is this: don’t just listen to people who have succeeded. Listen to the people who failed. Because statistically, you’re much more likely to fail than to succeed. And success always involves a degree of luck. No matter how hard you work, there’s a huge amount of timing and chance involved.

If you only listen to people who got lucky, you’ll hear stories you can’t replicate. I think there’s a lot more to be gained from understanding what went wrong for others and avoiding those same mistakes. That’s probably my number one view. For every founder that raised a funding round at the final moment before folding the company, there will be many more who were not so lucky.

I’d also strongly recommend making sure you really understand the problem you’re trying to solve. Know your customer, understand the pain point inside out, and be clear on the impact of solving it. Most importantly, ask yourself why you are the right person to solve that problem.

Your product will almost certainly change. Your idea might evolve. But if the problem is real and you’re close to it, you’ll find a way to fix it. That’s what matters most.

In my case, I was lucky. I ended up doing exactly what my mum once suggested. I joined a big company, experienced a problem firsthand, and came away with an idea of how  to solve it . I didn’t think I could do it better than Barclays, but I did feel the pain of that problem. I saw it clearly. That gave me a foundation to build from.

If I had started something totally unrelated, like a running club app, it would never have worked. I’ve never worked in that space, I don’t know the market, and frankly, I don’t like running. It would have been a bad fit, even if I thought on paper it was a good idea or there was a market for it   

That’s a great way to put it.

And for anyone moving from a traditional institution into fintech, I’d say be prepared for it to feel very different. The skills you’ve used might not be as transferable as you think. There’s a learning curve.

It’s a bit of a cliché, but it’s true. There’s a long history of people from investment banking, for example, thinking fintech is a natural next step. But it’s a totally different world.

Absolutely. And culturally, it’s a big shift too. As you said earlier, no two days are the same. You’ve got to wear a lot of hats and be comfortable rolling up your sleeves to get things done. That’s usually quite a contrast to working in a larger company, where your role is defined and structured.

Exactly. But the upside is that you can have a much bigger impact. The scale of what you can deliver, influence, and change is so much greater than in a big organisation. And that’s exciting.

Absolutely. Well, thank you so much, Rob. It’s been brilliant having you on. Your answers have been insightful and refreshingly honest. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation.

Thank you. Appreciate it.