FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch – Page 47 – At the Crossroads of Law, Innovation and Commerce

Indonesia’s financial services authority issues its first FinTech regulations

Jan 12 2017

Indonesia’s financial services authority (OJK) has issued its first regulations relating to FinTech. The regulations lay out minimum capital requirements, interest rate provision and education and consumer protection rules.

Every Indonesian FinTech P2P lending firm must now register and secure a business licence from the authority. A company must have Indonesian Rupiah 1 billion ($75,000) in capital to register, and a further Indonesian Rupiah 2.5 billion ($188,000) to apply for a business licence. These figures are approximately half those that had been proposed in previously issued draft regulations. Foreign ownership is limited to 85%.

No maximum interest rate has been set, which again contradicts previous drafts of the regulations which set a cap of seven times Bank Indonesia’s seven-day reverse purchase rate per annum.

Muliaman Hadad, chair of OJK, told the Jakarta Post that the regulation was only an initial step in the authorities’ efforts to regulate and supervise the business. “What’s important is they get onto our radar because we don’t want to regulate the prudential aspects hastily. We want to provide [business] transparency guidelines first,” Hadad said. The OJK also has implemented a regulatory sandbox for firms to test services for consumers.

Bank Indonesia set up a dedicated office and regulatory sandbox in November 2016 to help FinTech developers. It will also provide services to help developers to understand Indonesia’s regulatory policies on FinTech, gather and disseminate information on developments, and hold regular meetings with authorities and international bodies interested in the use of technology in finance, Bank Indonesia said.

For a full text (in Indonesian) of the regulations, please click here.

Building Smart Contracts Trust in 2017-The Lawyer’s Role

Jan 09 2017

By Susan P. Altman

In 2016 we saw a flurry of discussion, a lot of interest, and a little bit of actual experimentation with smart contracts, the computer programs that automatically execute the terms of a contract on a blockchain. What do we need to firmly launch smart contracts into the mainstream and what is the lawyer’s role? A recent article in Coindesk by executives at Tezos argues that we need to conquer three remaining barriers: 1) implementation of formal verification of the smart contract code—a mathematical technique of verifying the integrity of software code; 2) enablement of transparency of the smart contract code by using interpreted code rather than compiled code (a concept meaningful to developers that permits them to more easily inspect code on the blockchain); and 3) development of clear governance mechanisms for the smart contract.

The first two barriers must be solved by software developers. It’s the last item—development of clear governance mechanisms—that will require joining the lawyer’s legal skills with the software developer’s coding skill. Software on the blockchain is immutable, but there has to be a mechanism for correction of the inevitable software error. Here is where the lawyer will tailor the governance processes learned so well in significant outsourcing transactions: governance and committee structure, issue escalation procedures, and change request process. Smart contracts are intended to be part of real contracts, and we lawyers already know the building blocks of well-crafted contracts. Here’s to 2017!

The Future of Active Funds Part 1: Will Blockchain Save Actively Managed Mutual Funds?

Jan 06 2017

By Tyler Kirk

With the rise of passive products in the mutual fund industry, active managers have suffered staggering outflows. On July 9, 2016, Barron’s published an article titled, The Future of Mutual Funds, addressing what Morningstar calls, “Flowmegeddon.” According to Barron’s, investors withdrew US$308B from actively managed mutual funds and invested US$375B into low-cost passive mutual funds and ETFs for the 12 month period ending in May 2016. Focusing on active shops during that same period, the median outflow of the 10 best performers was US$598M and the same for the bottom 10 shops was US$3.8B. Thus, performance alone will not save actively managed funds, costs need to be cut.

On December 13, 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that 60 mutual fund executives met inside OppenheimerFunds’ Manhattan office to discuss outflows from active shops. Named the “Seismic Shift Senior Leadership Forum, one of the proposed solutions was to reduce fees. Could blockchain be the answer?

In an October 21, 2016 article, Ignites Europe reported that service provider International Financial Data Services (“IFDS”) had carried out a test where mutual fund shares were bought using its mobile application. The transaction was processed, recorded on the blockchain, and added to IFDS’s registry. According to IFDS, mutual funds could cut costs by as much as $100M by distributing shares directly to investors through the blockchain. IFDS could bring its blockchain to market as soon as 2017.

Additionally, blockchain can be used for back-office processes as well as the recording of transactions for compliance and regulatory purposes. Combining blockchain with smart contracts may introduce efficiencies in the sec-lending and repo markets for funds.

Yet, there are regulatory and operational risks. How would funds meet recordkeeping and custody rules? Would no-action or exemptive order relief be required from regulators? Further, cybersecurity and protecting PII will have to be paramount. Nevertheless, in spite of the risks, active shops that implement blockchain operations correctly are likely to see significant first-mover advantages, and they just might discover the right combination of performance and cost savings.

Retailer invests in FinTech

Jan 05 2017

By Jonathan Lawrence

UK department store company House of Fraser is to invest £35m in Tandem, an app-only challenger bank. The move will enable House of Fraser to offer online banking services to shoppers.

Tandem was founded in 2014 and received its UK banking licence a year ago. It has already raised over $30m from investors, including eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar. Founded in 2014, Tandem raised £1m last year in a crowdfunding campaign, valuing it at £65m.

Tandem competes with other new app-only start-up banks, dubbed “neobanks”, including Monzo, Starling and Atom. It currently offers a savings tool that lets people monitor spending on any bank account. It began rolling out its app in November 2016 and plans to launch credit and debit products in 2017.

House of Fraser was acquired by Chinese conglomerate Sanpower in a £480m deal in 2014. While the company already offers credit and loyalty cards through NewDay, the ability to offer app-only online banking services is a departure that could see other UK retail multiples follow suit.

UK FCA to publish consultation paper on new rules for investment and loan-based crowdfunding platforms

Jan 05 2017

By Tom R. Wallace

In December 2016 the UK FCA published a statement of its intention to publish a Consultation Paper in Q1 2017 proposing new rules for investment and loan-based crowdfunding platforms.

Based on information the FCA has gathered through a consultation ending in September 2016 and its supervision and authorisation of crowdfunding platforms, the FCA’s view is that aspects of the crowdfunding market currently pose some risks to its objectives. The FCA perceives risk of regulatory arbitrage in the loan-based sector, and potential for investors to misunderstand the nature of the products offered. While respondents to the FCA’s request for feedback rightly note that many of these risks existed when the FCA established the current crowdfunding regulatory framework in 2014, the FCA counters that the market has grown in significance and complexity since then.

While investment-based crowdfunding is facilitated entirely by fully-authorised firms, most loan-based crowdfunding firms, including the largest ones, have so far operated under interim permissions. The FCA notes that, while it has identified some issues about the investment-based crowdfunding market, most of its attention at this time is on issues in relation to loan-based crowdfunding.

Taken together with its other statements on the crowdfunding sector, the FCA is giving an indication of its perspective on the issues associated with the #crowdfunding market and, pending publication of consultations on the new rules, incumbents and innovators should take care to create legal, operational and compliance structures that are likely to align with the FCA’s direction of travel in this market.

The FCA frame this as an evolution of the existing regulatory framework, not a revolution, and I find the FCA’s depth of the knowledge about, objectives for and focus on the market to be a source of optimism for the future of the crowdfunding market in the UK for investors, incumbents and innovators.

SEC FinTech Forum Part 2: Don’t Call Me a Robo Adviser

Dec 21 2016

By Brian Vargo and Tyler Kirk

As we reported in Part 1 of this series of posts, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held its first forum exclusively focused on the impact of the FinTech movement on November 14, 2016. The first panel of the forum addressed recent innovations in investment advisory services. The panel was comprised of Ben Alden, General Counsel of Betterment, Bo Lu, Co-Founder and CEO of Future Advisor at Blackrock, Mark Goines, Vice Chairman of Personal Capital, and Jim Allen, Head of Capital Markets Policy Group, CFA Institute. While several of the panelists lamented the use of the title “Robo Adviser,” the panel’s discussion was vibrant and delved deeply into the role robo advisers (advisers which rely to varying degrees on computer-based technology, primarily algorithms, to deliver investment advice) are and should be playing in the United States.

First, the panel discussed the growth in automated advice, attributing the growth to the ability of lower net worth investors, especially those comfortable with technology, to obtain affordable and sophisticated investment advice. Given the savings shortfall in the United States, this growth was viewed to be a positive trend. Further, the panel also noted that the DOL Fiduciary Rule is also driving growth. Ultimately, the panelists thought that the industry would consolidate as assets under management grew.

ASIC provides update on the Innovation Hub

Dec 16 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

In a recent speech, Australian Securities and Investments Commission Chairman Greg Medcraft released information on FinTech businesses which have taken advantage of the Innovation Hub established by ASIC in April earlier this year. Robo-advisers and marketplace lenders were the most prevalent types of businesses to approach the Innovation Hub. The 109 different businesses that the Innovation Hub engaged with this year included:

25 robo-advisers
22 marketplace lenders
17 payments businesses
11 credit providers
9 crowdsourced equity providers

ASIC has also noted that those who received assistance from the Innovation Hub before applying for an Australian financial services licence were approved on average 95 days or 45% faster than those who hadn’t.

UK and Hong Kong sign cooperation agreement

Dec 14 2016

By Jonathan Lawrence

FinTech companies and other innovative financial businesses will be given help to establish overseas operations in the UK and Hong Kong by regulators in those countries under a new cooperation agreement signed in London on 9 December 2016. Under the agreement, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) will “refer to each other innovator businesses that would like to operate in the other authority’s jurisdiction”.

Upon a referral being received, the FCA or HKMA both intend to “assist the innovator businesses in understanding the regulatory regime” that they oversee and explain “how such regimes may be relevant” to those companies. The agreement also confirms that the FCA and HKMA intend to “share information about innovations in financial services in their respective markets”, such as on emerging trends and regulatory issues pertaining to innovation. The FCA and HKMA may also pursue “joint innovation projects on the application of novel financial technologies”, share expertise and knowledge, and facilitate staff secondments to one another, under the new cooperation agreement.

Will there be an Asia Pacific ‘FinTech Passport’ in the future?

Dec 14 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Chairman, Greg Medcraft, has discussed cooperation between FinTech regulators at the recent International Institute of Finance Chief Risk Officer Forum in Singapore.

The Chairman noted “because the internet knows no boundaries” cooperation and collaboration between regulators is critical and developing responses to FinTech should not be done in isolation. The Chairman then highlighted the following steps required for cooperation.

1. Sharing information

Regulators in Australia, UK, Singapore, Canada, Kenya, South Korea, Switzerland and India have entered into various cooperation agreements with other regulators to share information about FinTech developments and emerging trends in their markets. Many of the cooperation agreements also allow FinTech businesses to access Innovation Hubs in other jurisdictions. The Chairman noted that ASIC was also informally in regular contact with regulators in the US and Europe.

2. Harmonisation

While ideally regulators would work towards harmonising their regulatory responses and approaches, it was acknowledged that this will be a challenge due to competition between countries to attract FinTech businesses. The Chairman raised the possibility of introducing a “fintech passport” which could ease entry into other jurisdictions for businesses. Another possible solution raised was to develop “equivalence processes” around regulation.

Regulating digital advice in Australia

Dec 13 2016

By Jim Bulling and Meera Sivanathan

Recently, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) presented its views on regulating digital advice at a Financial Services Council event. The discussion provided an overview of the regulator’s priorities in this space. Below are a few key takeaways relevant to those currently providing or seeking to provide digital advice:

Clear disclosure: ASIC would like to see clear disclosure in relation to the services and advice a consumer may expect to receive and express statements regarding advice that the consumer will not receive. Consumers need to be able to easily identify what advice will and will not be provided to them.
Testing consumer knowledge: ASIC suggests ‘testing’ potential consumers in the following ways:

With respect to consumer protection – implementing methods to test consumer understanding of the scope of advice provided – that is, what advice will and will not be provided. Such protocols may alleviate any risk that a potential consumer is unaware of the scope of advice to be provided.
With respect to better understanding your client, implementing ‘quizzes’ to gauge the consumer’s level of knowledge regarding different products, which may be offered. This could give the digital advice provider an idea of the level of knowledge and understanding that the consumer may possess in relation to complex products.

Record keeping: Companies providing digital advice should have appropriate and robust algorithm record keeping systems. Ideally, the systems in place should control, monitor, review and effectively record any changes made to the algorithms. Digital advice providers should be able to substantiate the reasons for updating the algorithm, which underpins the advice given. Some examples of possible record keeping measures relating to algorithms include automated reports which can be downloaded and provided to ASIC if requested or snap shots in time.