FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch – Page 52 – At the Crossroads of Law, Innovation and Commerce

Movement in marketplace lending regulation for small business loans

Sep 09 2016

Marketplace lenders who cater to small businesses are about to face increased regulation in relation to the credit they provide. From 12 November 2016, some businesses will receive the same protection currently available to consumers as unfair contract terms in small business contracts will become prohibited.

Small business contracts include loans which are entered into with businesses which have fewer than 20 employees for an amount less than $300,000 or less than $1 million if the term of the loan is more than 12 months.

Under the new law, a contract term will be unfair if:

it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations;
it is not reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
it would cause detriment to a party if the term is relied on.

HKMA’s support to fintech development in Hong Kong

Sep 09 2016

By Michael P. W. Wong

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), announced on 6 September 2016, the launch of Fintech Innovation Hub (FIH) and the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS).

The FIH will be jointly established by the HKMA and the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute for the purposes of supporting and promoting the research and development of fintech by the local financial services industry. The FIH will be equipped with all the requisite IT systems and supported by technical teams, enabling industry players to pioneer or build upon new fintech solutions, such as enhanced biometric authentication and integrated mobile payment services. In addition, operation of the FIH is expected to facilitate dialogue between the HKMA and the relevant industry players on emerging technologies by serving as a common training venue. For instance, the HKMA may wish to explore “regtech” solutions to improve its regulatory efficiency in the FIH.

Goldman Accelerates FinTech Disintermediation

Sep 09 2016

By Susan Altman

Goldman Sachs, in a dramatic sign of the times, has recently started giving its clients for free the very software tools that made Goldman a global trading powerhouse, per the Wall Street Journal. A decade ago, Goldman considered licensing the software to rival Deutsche Bank and threw around licensing values in the billions of dollars. Now it’s free, at least for customers. The software, known as Securities DataBase, or SecDB, remains Goldman’s prime tool for measuring securities risk and analyzing their prices and is used to analyze potential trades. Why the change? Some experts point the finger at new regulations limiting the banks’ trading risks and making it costly to hold large inventories of stocks and bonds on their books. In addition, electronic trading and research has squeezed margins across the financial industry. In an effort to build its customer base, Goldman plans to make the web-based application available to customers who can then customize and operate the tools on their own. Goldman joins many others in offering its own risk-management system to customers, including startups and big players like BlackRock. It seems like every Fin is now a Tech as well.

Who bears the risk? Federal Court holds that a purchaser of unsecured consumer loans is the “true lender”

Sep 09 2016

By Irene C. Freidel and David D. Christensen

A California federal court has held that the purchaser of consumer loans is the “true lender” and thus subject to state usury laws, even though a separate entity funded and closed the loans in its own name. The recent decision, however, is another reminder that US state and federal regulators, as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys, may be able to pierce these partnerships where the financial institution funding and closing the loan does not bear substantial risk on those loans.

U.S. Banking regulators issue a “Joint Fact Sheet on Foreign Correspondent Banking”: Is this a response to global fears of US “DeRisking”? And if so, does it go far enough?

Sep 07 2016

By Judith Rinearson

This summer, “de-risking” has become a hot topic. De-risking is the term used to describe the process many banks have taken to cancel bank accounts and correspondent banking relationships with customers whom they deem to be too risky, or not worth the cost of ensuring compliance. Losing a bank account relationship can be devastating for small businesses and many emerging payments companies have found it increasingly difficult to obtain banking service due to perceptions that providing banking services for “fintechs,” blockchain companies and other innovative payments companies would be “high risk”.

The concerns about derisking are not limited to its impact on small businesses; it has also impacted on small countries. IMF President Christine LaGarde noted in July 2016 that “regulators in key financial centers need to clarify regulatory expectations …and global banks need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and find sensible ways to reduce their costs.”

Roboadvisers are Go: ASIC guidance for digital advice

Sep 04 2016

By Daniel Knight and Claire De Koeyer

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) this week released Regulatory Guide 255: Providing digital financial product advice to retail clients (RG). The RG clarifies how financial product advice obligations apply to providers of digital advice.

ASIC supports the development of a healthy and robust ‘digital advice’ or ‘robo-advice’ market in Australia, while recognising the need to protect consumers.

As with other advice providers, robo-advisers will need to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) or be authorised by an AFSL holder and will be subject to a range of duties, including the duty to act in the best interests of their clients.

Bitcoin operators exposed to cyber threats

Sep 01 2016

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

Reuters has reported that a third of bitcoin trading platforms have been hacked, and nearly half have closed since they entered the scene 6 years ago. This increasing risk for bitcoin holders is compounded by the fact there is no depositor’s insurance to absorb the loss. That approach heightens cybersecurity risks and also exposes the fact that bitcoin investors have little choice but to do business with under-capitalized exchanges.

This issue was evident when Bitfinex was hacked earlier this month and an estimated $70 million in bitcoin was stolen. The virtual bank’s customers were forced to share the losses resulting in a generalized loss percentage of 36.067%. Read our blog post on this hacking here.

Experts say trading venues acting like banks such as Bitfinex will remain vulnerable. These exchanges act as custodial wallets in which they control users’ digital currencies like banks control customer deposits. However, unlike their brick-and-mortar counterparts, when customers’ bitcoin accounts are hacked, there is currently no third party that can step in to deal with the theft. As a result, these underfunded exchanges require nearly perfect security.

Given this it is not surprising that certain governments around the world are exploring the possibility of central bank issued digital currencies using distributed ledger technology which could compete with the private digital currency systems such as bitcoin. Read more on this here.

The politicization of encryption: party “platforms” or “platitudes”?

Sep 01 2016

By Tyler Kirk

In the United States, the political stage is set for what may turn out to be one of the most infamous presidential elections in America’s history. As noted in an earlier blog post, the regulation of encryption by U.S. legislators and regulatory agencies may have a damaging impact on FinTech, and in particular, on the adoption of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. In this post, we look at the relevant Party Platforms to learn what, if anything, they say about encryption.

Monetary Authority of Singapore – consultation on proposed changes to payments regulatory framework

Aug 31 2016

By Nicholas Hanna

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which is the regulatory authority overseeing financial matters in Singapore, issued a consultation paper on 25 August 2016 setting out proposed changes to the payments regulatory framework in Singapore together with the proposed establishment of a National Payments Council.

In a response to the lines between payments and remittance being blurred by technical innovation and the increasing number of payment providers that do not fit neatly into either of these categories, MAS is proposing to consolidate its regulation of both payments and remittance into a single framework. Currently, such services are split across the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act and the Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act.

MAS has confirmed that the new single framework will provide for licensing, regulation and supervision of all payment services, including stored value facility holders, remittance companies and virtual currency intermediaries. The new framework is likely to be applied on an activity basis with entities being required to apply for a single licence to undertake several payment activities. Read More

Proposed FDIC guidance on marketplace lending could have far reaching impact on industry

Aug 31 2016

By Sean Mahoney

Following up on its recent Supervisory Insights article on marketplace lending and Advisory on Effective Risk Management Practices for Purchased Loans and Purchased Loan Participations, the FDIC on July 31, 2016 released its proposed Examination Guidance for Third-Party Lending. If nothing else, this series of recent developments demonstrates the FDIC’s concern with the role of banks in marketplace lending. Unlike the prior two releases, the July proposed guidance is subject to public comment, with a comment period expiring October 27, 2016.

All three issuances share a common set of fundamental concerns. These include concerns that (a) a bank may rely on a marketplace lending platform to an unjustified extent; (b) the marketplace lending activity may not fit within a bank’s corporate strategy; (c) that lending through a marketplace platform may not be consistent with the bank’s underwriting standards; (d) that the bank may not adequately assure that the activity is being conducted in accordance with applicable law; and (e) that the bank may not otherwise adequately manage risks inherent in the activity. The Proposed Guidance goes a few steps further by requiring that banks that engage in marketplace lending activities have specific, detailed policies and procedures addressing a set of prescribed parameters. Further the Proposed Guidance would mandate that contracts between a bank and marketplace lending platform provide the bank with, among other things, (i) the right to mandate that the platform adopt policies and procedures governing any activity outsourced to the platform, and (ii) rights to performance data, audits and funding information.

While the Proposed Guidance will only apply to state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, it could have far-reaching effects given the increased prevalence of state-chartered banks of all types in marketplace lending. Moreover, the Proposed Guidance may strain the tension between financial innovation and comprehensive regulatory oversight inherent in much of FinTech.