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.
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Securities, Fintech, Regulatory Oversight, GAO
Previous ArticleIMF Reports on 2018 Article IV Consultation and FSSA with Belgium
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
PRA published updates in relation to the 2021 Supervisory Benchmarking Portfolio exercise.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341).
HKMA revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CR-G-14 on margin and other risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.