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 ArticleEC Adopts Rules on Investments in STS Securitizations for Insurers
PRA published the policy statement PS8/21, which contains the final supervisory statement SS3/21 on the PRA approach to supervision of the new and growing non-systemic banks in UK.
EBA published a report that sets out the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions according to which consolidation shall be carried out in line with Article 18 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
EBA updated the list of other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) in EU.
BCBS published two reports that discuss transmission channels of climate-related risks to the banking system and the measurement methodologies of climate-related financial risks.
UK Authorities (FCA and PRA) welcomed the findings of FSB peer review on the implementation of financial sector remuneration reforms in the UK.
PRA and FCA jointly issued a letter that highlights risks associated with the increasing volumes of deposits that are placed with banks and building societies via deposit aggregators and how to mitigate these risks.
MFSA announced that amendments to the Banking Act, Subsidiary Legislation, and Banking Rules will be issued in the coming months, to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5) into the national regulatory framework.
EC finalized the Delegated Regulation 2021/598 that supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or 575/2013) and lays out the regulatory technical standards for assigning risk-weights to specialized lending exposures.
OSFI launched a consultation to explore ways to enhance the OSFI assurance over capital, leverage, and liquidity returns for banks and insurers, given the increasing complexity arising from the evolving regulatory reporting framework due to IFRS 17 (Insurance Contracts) standard and Basel III reforms.
ECB published results of the benchmarking analysis of the recovery plan cycle for 2019.