Sacra estimates that Celtic Bank generated $345 million in revenue in 2024, down 21% from $434 million in 2023. The revenue decline was driven primarily by a 22% drop in interest income to $246 million as average loan balances fell approximately 23%, reflecting the loss of Square Capital after Block launched its own charter and normalization in Affirm BNPL volumes as consumer spending cooled.

Non-interest income, which includes loan sale fees, program fees from fintech partners, and SBA servicing income, declined 16% to $99 million but increased as a percentage of total revenue from 27% to 29%.

Celtic's revenue remains heavily concentrated in interest income from fintech-originated loans, which represented 86% of the bank's $246 million in interest income in 2024.

Celtic Bank Corporation is privately held and has not disclosed recent fundraising rounds or valuations. The bank went private in 2006 after previously trading on OTC markets, and has since funded growth through retained earnings rather than external capital raises.

This contrasts with competitors like Cross River Bank, which raised $620 million at a $3+ billion valuation in 2022. Celtic's ownership appears to be closely held by founding management and private investors, allowing the bank to maintain operational control without external investor pressures for aggressive growth or exit strategies.

Celtic Bank provides the regulated banking infrastructure that allows fintech companies to offer credit products nationwide without obtaining their own bank charters. As a Utah-chartered industrial bank, Celtic handles loan origination, compliance oversight, and regulatory requirements while fintech partners manage customer acquisition and user experience.

When a user applies for financing through a fintech app like Stripe Capital or Affirm, the underlying loan is actually issued by Celtic Bank. The fintech platform handles the application process, customer interface, and often preliminary underwriting using proprietary algorithms. Celtic then reviews and approves loans under agreed criteria, officially originates the loan on its balance sheet, and ensures all regulatory compliance requirements are met.

The end customer typically experiences a seamless, branded fintech product - from instant approval to automated repayment - while Celtic operates invisibly in the background as the legal lender of record. For example, when a Square merchant accepts a capital advance, funds are delivered through Square's interface with automated repayment via daily sales percentages, but Celtic Bank is the actual issuer disclosed in the fine print.

Celtic's API-integrated infrastructure enables real-time loan decisions and funding, supporting products ranging from small business working capital loans and lines of credit to consumer point-of-sale installment financing. The bank specializes in embedded lending rather than deposit accounts or payment cards, leveraging its expertise in SBA and commercial lending to structure programs with fintech partners.

Celtic operates a B2B2C model where it functions as a regulated banking layer for fintech platforms. The bank creates value by providing regulatory arbitrage - its Utah charter allows it to export favorable state interest rate laws nationwide, enabling fintech partners to offer higher-rate loans in states with restrictive usury caps.

Celtic monetizes through multiple revenue streams depending on the partnership structure. In many cases, the bank originates loans and immediately sells them to the fintech partner or investors, earning origination fees and loan sale premiums while transferring credit risk. For shorter-term or smaller loans, Celtic may retain positions on its balance sheet, earning interest income over time from the high-yield products.

The business model features significant operating leverage - once API platforms and compliance frameworks are established, adding new fintech clients brings incremental revenue with relatively low marginal costs. Celtic avoids customer acquisition expenses and retail infrastructure by leveraging fintech partners' existing platforms and customer bases.

Revenue-sharing arrangements vary by partnership, but typically involve Celtic charging borrowers origination fees while sharing portions with fintech partners who handle customer service and loan management. The bank's lean cost structure focuses on compliance oversight, risk management, and technology integration rather than traditional banking operations like branch networks or mass marketing.

This model has enabled Celtic to achieve loan volumes far exceeding what a bank of its size could typically handle through traditional channels, while maintaining high profitability through fee income and interest spreads on fintech-facilitated loans.

Cross River Bank represents Celtic's most formidable competitor, with over $2 billion in assets and a broader platform serving consumer lenders like Upstart and Rocket Loans alongside business lending partners.

Cross River has secured substantial venture funding and built comprehensive API infrastructure spanning payments, cards, and lending. WebBank, another Utah industrial bank, pioneered marketplace lending partnerships with companies like LendingClub and Prosper, while also powering PayPal Working Capital advances. FinWise Bank targets similar fintech partnerships but has courted riskier subprime lending programs, including high-APR installment loans that have drawn regulatory scrutiny.

A parallel competitive segment focuses on deposit accounts and payment card sponsorship for fintechs. The Bancorp Bank, Evolve Bank & Trust, and Stride Bank handle FDIC-insured accounts and debit card issuance for neobanks like Chime and payment apps like Venmo.

While not directly competing with Celtic's lending focus, these institutions capture fintech partnerships more broadly. Some banks like Cross River and Evolve are expanding to straddle both lending and deposit sponsorship, potentially creating one-stop solutions that could pressure Celtic's specialized approach.

New banking infrastructure companies like Column Bank are building fully integrated platforms by acquiring existing bank charters and retrofitting them with modern APIs. Column has attracted high-profile fintech partners like Brex and Mercury by offering direct banking relationships rather than traditional sponsor bank arrangements.

Lead Bank has similarly transformed from a community bank into a fintech-focused institution, recently becoming an additional partner for Affirm alongside Celtic. These competitors differentiate by controlling both the technology stack and banking charter under one roof, potentially offering faster product development and fewer legacy system constraints than traditional sponsor bank models.

The embedded finance boom is expanding into vertical SaaS platforms that serve specific industries. Software providers for restaurants, healthcare, construction, and other sectors are adding lending features for their business clients, creating opportunities for Celtic to power credit products beyond current partnerships.

B2B marketplaces connecting suppliers and buyers are embedding financing to facilitate transactions, while platforms with rich transaction data can leverage Celtic's quick underwriting capabilities to offer instant credit decisions.

Celtic can expand beyond its current focus on term loans and lines of credit into adjacent products like credit cards, equipment financing, and merchant cash advances. Many fintech partners are launching branded credit cards that require bank issuance, presenting opportunities to capture interchange fees alongside interest income.

The bank's SBA lending expertise positions it well for equipment financing partnerships, while revenue-based financing products could attract fintechs preferring alternative repayment structures.

Celtic's Utah charter provides advantages for serving international fintechs entering the U.S. market, similar to how UK-based Revolut partnered with U.S. banks for domestic operations.

Regulatory changes could create new opportunities - for example, recent SBA moves toward allowing fintech direct access to government lending programs could position Celtic as a compliance partner rather than facing disintermediation. The bank could also explore controlled entry into cryptocurrency-adjacent services as regulatory clarity emerges, leveraging its charter for fintechs operating in digital asset spaces.

Regulatory scrutiny: The Banking-as-a-Service sector faces intensifying oversight as regulators grow concerned about fintech partnerships and third-party risk management. Celtic must ensure it maintains true control over lending decisions and compliance rather than being viewed as merely renting its charter, with recent enforcement actions against other sponsor banks creating potential precedent for stricter oversight of fintech relationships.

Partner concentration: Celtic's growth depends on a relatively small number of large fintech relationships, creating dependency risk if major partners fail, switch providers, or obtain their own bank charters. The loss of Square as a partner when it acquired its own bank demonstrates how successful fintech clients may eventually reduce reliance on sponsor banks, potentially leaving Celtic with limited ability to quickly replace lost revenue streams.

Credit performance: While Celtic typically structures partnerships to transfer credit risk to fintech partners through loan sales or indemnification, the bank remains exposed to headline risk and regulatory action if partner programs engage in harmful lending practices. Recent investigations of fraudulent PPP loans facilitated by fintechs have shown how sponsor banks can face scrutiny for insufficient oversight of partner activities, requiring robust program management to maintain regulatory standing.