Featured Product

    BIS Tests CBDC with Banks; FIS Examines Tech Firm Licensing Regime

    January 20, 2022

    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.


    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Switzerland, Banking, Lending, Regtech, Bank Licenses, Project Helvetia, Digital Currencies, Bigtech, SNB, FSI, BIS

    Related Articles

    CFPB Finalizes Rule on Small Business Lending Data Collection

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published a final rule that sets out data collection requirements on small business lending, under section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    March 30, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BCBS to Consult on Pillar 3 Climate Risk Disclosures by End of 2023

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a summary of the recent Basel Committee (BCBS) meetings.

    March 23, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    FINMA Approves Merger of Credit Suisse and UBS

    The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has approved the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS.

    March 21, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BOE Sets Out Its Thinking on Regulatory Capital and Climate Risks

    The Bank of England (BOE) published a working paper that aims to understand the climate-related disclosures of UK financial institutions.

    March 13, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    US Congress Report Examines Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Regulations

    The U.S. Congressional Research Service published a report on banking, data privacy, and cybersecurity regulation.

    March 13, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    OSFI Finalizes on Climate Risk Guideline, Issues Other Updates

    The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is seeking comments, until May 31, 2023, on the draft guideline on culture and behavior risk, with final guideline expected by the end of 2023.

    March 12, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    EU to Conduct One-Off Scenario Analysis to Assess Transition Risk

    The European authorities recently made multiple announcements that impact the banking sector.

    March 10, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    APRA Assesses Macro-Prudential Policy Settings, Issues Other Updates

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published an information paper that assesses its macro-prudential policy settings aimed at promoting stability at a systemic level.

    March 07, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BIS Paper Examines Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Lending

    BIS issued a paper that investigates the effect of the greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions of firms on bank loans using bank–firm matched data of Japanese listed firms from 2006 to 2018.

    March 03, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    HMT Mulls Alignment of Ring-Fencing and Resolution Regimes for Banks

    The HM Treasury (HMT) is seeking evidence, until May 07, 2023, on practicalities of aligning the ring-fencing and the banking resolution regimes for banks.

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8810