BIS has pre-released a chapter of the BIS Annual Economic Report; this chapter focuses on the risks and opportunities presented by large technology firms (big techs) in the financial services sector. The chapter highlights that the entry of big techs presents new and complex trade-offs among financial stability, competition, and data protection. Regulators need to ensure a level playing field between big techs and banks, taking into account big techs' wide customer base, access to information, and broad-ranging business models.
The chapter begins with a description of big techs' inroads into finance. It then analyzes the reasons for the entry of big techs into finance and how the business models of big techs can create competitive advantages over banks. Finally, the chapter analyzes the potential effects of big techs on financial intermediation and discusses possible implications for public policy. The chapter also highlights that big techs have ventured into lending, mainly to small and medium enterprises and consumers. Lending decisions of big techs are linked to the processing of large quantities of information (big data) using advanced analytical methods such as machine learning and network analysis (artificial intelligence). Big data relevant for financial services obtained directly from big tech platforms include transactions (sales volumes and average selling prices); reputation-related information (claim ratio, handling time, reviews, and complaints); and industry-specific characteristics (sales seasonality, demand trend, and macroeconomic sensitivity). This can be also enriched by using non-traditional data obtained via social media and other channels.
The entry of big techs such as Alibaba, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Tencent into financial services, including payments, savings, and credit, could make the sector more efficient and increase access to these services, but also introduces new risks, the BIS writes in its Annual Economic Report. In offering financial services, big techs both compete and cooperate with banks. BIS notes that these companies offer many potential benefits, including enhanced efficiency of financial services provision, facilitating financial inclusion and promoting associated gains in economic activity. However, big techs' entry into finance introduces additional elements into the risk-benefit equation. The role of big techs in finance raises issues that go beyond traditional financial risks, according to BIS. Tackling these requires striking a balance between financial stability, competition, and data protection.
Regulators need to ensure a level playing field, taking into account wide customer bases and particular business models of big techs. As big techs' move into financial services accelerates, expanding beyond regulatory perimeters and geographical borders, policymakers will need institutional mechanisms to help them work and learn together. Coordination among authorities—national and international—is crucial to sharpening and expanding their regulatory tools. Banks are subject to regulations that govern their activities and their market entry is subject to strict licensing requirements. Similarly, when big techs engage in banking activities, they must be subject to the same regulations that apply to banks. The aim is to close the regulatory gaps between big techs and regulated financial institutions to limit the scope for regulatory arbitrage through shadow banking activities. To this end, regulators have extended existing banking regulations to big techs. The basic principle is "same activity, same regulation."
Keywords: International, Banking, Big Tech, Big Data, Credit Risk, Regulatory Arbitrage, Shadow Banking, BIS
Previous ArticleEBA Launches the 2019 Data Transparency Exercise for Banks in EU
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CG-5 that sets out guidelines on a sound remuneration system for authorized institutions.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final guidelines on the monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects on the establishment of intermediate parent undertakings in European Union (EU), as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD).
In a recent Market Notice, the Bank of England (BoE) confirmed that green gilts will have equivalent eligibility to existing gilts in its market operations.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the policy statement PS21/9 on implementation of the Investment Firms Prudential Regime.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) proposed regulatory technical standards that set out criteria for identifying shadow banking entities for the purpose of reporting large exposures.
The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) proposed a set of recommendations on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and data providers.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published recommendations from the Working Group on Euro Risk-Free Rates (RFR) on the switch to risk-free rates in the interdealer market.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published a paper as well as an article in the July Macroprudential Bulletin, both of which offer insights on the assessment of the impact of Basel III finalization package on the euro area.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) published a paper that explores the impact of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) on the trading of carbon certificates.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the remuneration policy self-assessment templates and tables on strengthening accountability.