The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) announced successful test integration of wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC) settlement with commercial banks, as part of the Project Helvetia. BIS also published a report on the Phase II of Project Helvetia, which involved BIS, the Swiss National Bank (SNB), and SIX (main provider of financial infrastructure services in Switzerland), and five commercial banks—namely, Citi, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Hypothekarbank Lenzburg, and UBS. Tests covered a wide range of transactions in Swiss francs—interbank, monetary policy, and cross-border—successfully demonstrating that such integration is operationally possible. In addition, a paper from the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS assesses the merits of extending a banking license to technology firms and outlines a range of policy options that are mapped to the risk profile of technology firms seeking a banking license.
Recently, several big tech and fintech firms have obtained a banking license in various jurisdictions. Despite the regulatory scrutiny that accompanies a banking license, a number of big tech and fintech firms see the value proposition that it confers. Asia, and in particular China, is home to the largest number of big tech firms that operate with a banking license. Numerous fintech firms have also been granted bank charters in the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, in the European Union and the United States. Access to low-cost deposits that complement their product offerings, the cost savings associated with eliminating the need for partner banks, the perceived trust and legitimacy that a banking license bestows, and the possibility that investors may reward such firms through higher market valuations more than offset the costs associated with operating as a bank. This paper assesses the benefits and risks of extending banking licenses to big tech and fintech firms. The findings are based on publicly available information on applicable licensing requirements in seven jurisdictions covering Asia, Europe and North America: China, European Union, Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore, the UK, and the US. A key focus of the paper is to compare the merits of bank ownership by tech firms in relation to ownership by commercial or industrial non-financial companies. To help differentiate their risk characteristics, this paper classifies technology firms into three distinct groups:
- Standalone fintech firms whose financial activities are conducted solely or primarily through their banking entity
- Large diversified fintech firms that engage in a broader range of (mainly) financial services through various channels, including the parent entity level, their subsidiary bank, and other non-bank subsidiaries, joint ventures, and affiliates
- Big tech firms with core non-financial businesses in social media, internet search, software, online retail, and telecommunications, who also offer financial services as a secondary business line
The question of whether to allow technology firms to operate with a banking license has the potential to permanently alter the landscape of national banking systems. Big tech firms and large diversified fintech firms pose the most significant supervisory concerns, with the former requiring more onerous prudential measures than the latter. To mitigate the perceived risks, authorities impose various quantitative and qualitative requirements during authorization, but supervision and enforcement may pose formidable challenges. In this context, the paper outlines a range of policy options that are mapped to the risk profile of technology firms seeking a banking license, to help support the gatekeeping role of prudential authorities. In devising applicable licensing criteria, authorities should consider technology firms’ distinct business models and their inherent risk characteristics, including their ability to scale at unprecedented speeds. Prudential authorities, as gatekeepers of the banking system, must decide whether to allow entry to these new gatekeepers of the digital economy and, if so, what requirements to impose on them. At one end of the spectrum is prohibiting or creating formidable barriers, while at the other is developing an enabling regulatory environment to facilitate their entry. The space between these theoretical extremes provides scope for prudential authorities to consider policy trade-offs that are appropriate for their jurisdiction-specific circumstances.
Keywords: International, Switzerland, Banking, Lending, Regtech, Bank Licenses, Project Helvetia, Digital Currencies, Bigtech, SNB, FSI, BIS
Previous ArticleMAS Issues Updates on Its Activities: Ravi Menon Becomes NGFS Chair
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its work program for 2023 as well as the technical package for phase 3 of version 3.2 of its reporting framework.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) announced a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise for six largest banks in the U.S.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a paper that studies impact of fintech lending on credit access for small businesses in U.S.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued the policy statement PS8/22 to amend the Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (CRR) Part of the PRA Rulebook and update the supervisory statement SS7/13 titled "Definition of capital (CRR firms).
The European Banking Authority (EBA) launched the EU-wide transparency exercise for 2022, with results of the exercise expected to be published at the beginning of December, along with the annual Risk Assessment Report.
The Single Resolution Board (SRB) welcomed the adoption of the review of the Capital Requirements Regulation, or CRR, also known as the "CRR quick-fix."
The European Commission (EC) recently adopted the Delegated Regulation 2022/1622, which sets out the regulatory technical standards to specify the countries that constitute advanced economies for the purpose of specifying risk-weights for the sensitivities to equity.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying and, where relevant, calibrating the minimum performance-related triggers for simple.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is undertaking the integrated reporting framework (IReF) project to integrate statistical requirements for banks into a standardized reporting framework that would be applicable across the euro area and adopted by authorities in other EU member states.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been awarded the top European Standard for its environmental performance under the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).