GAO Report Assesses Regulatory Oversight of Fintech Activities in US
The U.S. GAO published a report that assesses the regulatory oversight in the fintech landscape in the United States and offers recommendations for improvement. In written comments on a draft of this report, the agencies stated that they concurred with the GAO recommendations and would take responsive steps. GAO made recommendations for improving inter-agency coordination on fintech, addressing competing concerns on financial account aggregation, and evaluating whether it would be feasible and beneficial to adopt regulatory approaches similar to those undertaken by regulators in jurisdictions outside of the United States.
The GAO report assessed fintech benefits, risks, and protections for users; regulatory oversight of fintech firms; regulatory challenges for fintech firms; and the steps taken by domestic regulators and regulators in other countries to encourage financial innovation. The report concludes that fintech products pose similar risks as traditional products, but their risks may not always be sufficiently addressed by existing laws and regulations. It was also noted that fintech activities create data security and privacy concerns and could potentially impact the overall financial stability as fintech grows. The extent to which fintech firms are subject to federal oversight of their compliance with applicable laws varies. The U.S. regulatory structure poses challenges to fintech firms. With numerous regulators, fintech firms noted that identifying the applicable laws and how their activities will be regulated can be difficult. Although regulators have issued some guidance, fintech payment and lending firms say complying with fragmented state requirements is costly and time-consuming. Given their mandated consumer protection missions, regulators could act collaboratively to better ensure that consumers avoid financial harm and continue to benefit from these services.
In the report, GAO identified leading practices for inter-agency collaboration, including defining agency roles and responsibilities and defining outcomes. Implementing these practices could increase the effectiveness of regulatory efforts to help resolve this conflict. Regulators abroad have taken various approaches to encourage fintech innovation; these include establishing innovation offices to help fintech firms understand applicable regulations and foster regulatory interactions. Some use regulatory sandboxes that allow fintech firms to offer products on a limited scale and provide valuable knowledge about products and risks to both firms and regulators. Regulators abroad have also established various mechanisms to coordinate with other agencies on financial innovation. While some U.S. regulators have taken similar steps, others have not, due to the concerns related to favoring certain competitors or perceived lack of authority. While these constraints may limit regulator ability to take such steps, considering these approaches could result in better interactions between U.S. regulators and fintech firms and help regulators increase their understanding of fintech products. This would be consistent with the GAO framework calling for regulatory systems to be flexible and forward-looking to help regulators adapt to market innovations.
Related Links
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Securities, Fintech, Regulatory Oversight, GAO
Previous Article
IMF Reports on 2018 Article IV Consultation and FSSA with BelgiumRelated Articles
MAS Concludes Blockchain Payments Prototype Shows Commercial Potential
MAS and Temasek jointly released a report to mark the successful conclusion of the fifth and final phase of Project Ubin, which focused on building a blockchain-based multi-currency payments network prototype.
PRA Publishes Public Working Draft of XBRL Taxonomy 1.2.0 for Insurers
PRA published a public working draft, or PWD, of version 1.2.0 of the BoE Insurance XBRL taxonomy, along with the related technical artefacts.
CPMI Report Sets Out Building Blocks to Enhance Cross-Border Payments
CPMI published a report that sets out nineteen building blocks for a global roadmap to improve cross-border payments.
EBA Publishes Phase 2 of Technical Package on Reporting Framework 2.10
EBA published phase 2 of the technical package on the reporting framework 2.10, providing the technical tools and specifications for implementation of EBA reporting requirements.
APRA Updates Reporting Validation Rules in July 2020
APRA updated the lists of the Direct to APRA (D2A) validation rules for authorized deposit-taking institutions, insurers, and superannuation entities.
PRA to Partly Apply EBA Guidelines on Disclosures for COVID Measures
PRA updated the statement that provides guidance to regulated firms on implementation of the EBA guidelines on reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures applied in response to the COVID-19 crisis.
EBA Updates List of Correlated Currencies Under CRR
EBA updated the 2019 list of closely correlated currencies that was originally published in December 2013.
ESMA Guides on Securitization Repository Data Consistency Thresholds
ESMA published the final report on the guidelines on securitization repository data completeness and consistency thresholds.
FASB Proposes to Delay Implementation of Insurance Contracts Standard
FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update that would grant insurance companies, adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional year to implement the Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-12 on targeted improvements to accounting for long-duration insurance contracts, or LDTI (Topic 944).
APRA Updates Regulatory Approach to Loan Deferrals Amid COVID Crisis
APRA updated the regulatory approach for loans subject to repayment deferrals amid the COVID-19 crisis.
