The U.S. GAO published a statement focusing on the subsectors and regulatory oversight in fintech. GAO, in April 2017, issued the first of a series of planned reports on the fintech industry that describes four commonly referenced subsectors of fintech and their regulatory oversight. This testimony summarizes the findings of that report and describes commonly referenced fintech subsectors; potential benefits and risks of these subsectors, including recent industry trends; and regulatory oversight of these subsectors. This statement is based on the April 2017 report on the fintech industry.
Fintech products and services offer various potential benefits, including increased access to financial services, lower costs, increased speed of service, and convenience. Fintech products and services also pose various potential risks, including data security and privacy risks, risks posed by the use of alternative data, risk of human error or confusion, and risk posed by incomplete or inaccurate data. Trends that have emerged across the fintech landscape include the creation of partnerships between traditional financial institutions and fintech firms, formation of hybrid services, and establishment of self-regulatory efforts.
Regulation of the commonly referenced subsectors depends on the extent to which the firms provide a regulated service and the format in which the services are provided, with responsibilities fragmented among multiple entities that have overlapping authorities. Federal oversight authorities that apply to regulated activities generally include risk management oversight related to services provided to federally regulated depository institutions, consumer protection oversight, and securities and derivatives markets oversight. Some agencies have taken a number of steps to understand and monitor the fintech industry. State licensing laws and oversight mechanisms, including consumer protection, vary by state. Officials from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors note that the states are working on developing tools that can facilitate compliance with state-by-state licensing mechanisms.
Keywords: Americas, United States, Banking, Fintech, Regulatory Oversight, GAO
Previous ArticleESMA Publishes Final Report on Money Market Funds Regulation
Next ArticlePRA Publishes Consultation Paper on MREL Reporting
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.