Tougher Marketing Rules For FinTech Investments In The UK

The Financial Conduct Authority is consulting on tougher rules for the marketing of 'fintech' investments, including investment based‑crowdfunding, peer‑to‑peer (P2P) lending, other 'non‑readily realisable securities', non‑mainstream pooled investments (similar to unlisted investment funds) and speculative illiquid securities, as well as cryptoassets (when proposed Treasury regulations bring them within the financial promotions regime). The consultation ends on 23 March 2022. Firms will have 3 months to comply from publication of the final rules (cryptoasset changes will apply from the date when the Treasury changes apply). Based on experience in the P2P lending sector, the impact is likely to be severe, effectively restricting consumers to bank deposits and expensive listed instruments while shielding incumbent banks and investment firms from competition.

Classification of high‑risk investments.

The FCA intends to divide its rules into those that apply to ‘Restricted Mass Market Investments’ and those that apply to ‘Non‑Mass Market Investments.’ They have not yet applied their Speculative Illiquid Securities rules but may do so later in 2022. 

Consumer journey 

The FCA proposes to strengthen risk warnings and appropriateness tests, ban inducements to invest, introduce positive 'friction' in the investment process to give consumers a chance to reconsider their commitment and 'improve' the classification of different types of clients. 

The role of firms approving and communicating financial promotions

There will be a regulated 'section 21 gateway' for firms who approve financial promotions to ensure those firms have relevant expertise in the promotions they approve and that the quality of financial promotions is high. 

Qualifying cryptoassets

The Treasury is still considering its definition of cryptoassets for these purposes, but has indicated that a ‘qualifying cryptoasset’ for UK financial marketing rules will be "any cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights which is fungible and transferable," excluding otherwise regulated investments, e-money and fiat money, Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and tokens that operate like gift cards/vouchers with 'one or more vendors or merchants in payment for goods or services'.

The FCA intends to generally apply the same rules to cryptoassets as currently apply to ‘Restricted Mass Market Investments’ (Non‑Readily Realisable Securities and Peer‑to‑Peer lending agreements), but would not allow ‘Direct Offer’ Financial Promotions of qualifying cryptoassets to be made to self‑certified sophisticated investors. New rules aside, financial promotions relating to cryptoassets will also need to comply with existing financial promotion rules, including the requirements for the promotion to be clear, fair and not misleading.

Controlled activities

The UK regulations (Financial Promotion Order) specifies a series of 'controlled activities' that are the main business of firms who deal in 'controlled investments'. Of those activities the government considers that only some are relevant to qualifying cryptoassets and most associated with misleading cryptoasset promotions seen by the FCA:

• dealing in securities and contractually based investments;
• arranging deals in investments;
• managing investments;
• advising on investments;
• agreeing to carry on specified kinds of activity.

The government had considered whether to add to this list activities relating to the provision of cryptoasset exchanges, cryptoasset ATMs, 'airdrops'; as well as cryptoasset lending (where firms take cryptoasset ‘deposits’ and pay ‘interest’ from the income received from cryptoasset borrowers); and 'DeFi platforms' (decentralised apps or 'dapps' which are not controlled by a central authority and use a series of smart contracts to automate peer-to-peer lending, peer-to-contract lending, borrowing or trading with financial instruments on a permissionless network, e.g. to enable users to earn interest on their tokens by connecting token holders to other borrowers). However, the government believes these activities could well be covered by the above set of controlled activities - so it is not to say those activities are exempt merely because they are not specified. 

In addition, the exemptions that currently only apply to activities relating to insurance and deposit taking; and marketing unlisted securities to certified high net worth individuals and self-certified sophisticated investors will not apply to qualifying cryptoassets.

Impact

The FCA's clear intention is to dampen enthusiasm for certain investments, particularly cryptoassets, among investors who don't understand what they are investing in and/or cannot afford to lose the amount they invest. The FCA explains it this way:

A key part of the strategy is addressing the harm from consumers investing in high‑risk investments that do not match their risk tolerance. This can lead to unexpected and significant losses for consumers and undermine wider confidence in investments, making it harder for all firms to raise capital. We do not want to unnecessarily restrict consumers who want to invest, but we want them to be able to access and identify investments that suit their circumstances and attitude to risk.

As ever, the concern must be that regulated firms and consumers facing these hurdles will be shut out of the markets for innovative products (as has happened with P2P lending). That would leave consumers with low return savings accounts and 'safe' listed products that have both high fees and low returns; and favour incumbent banks and investment firms over new market entrants.

In the UK, at least, there does not seem to be any middle ground... rather like our politics.

 

'Slight Delay' To EU Crowdfunding Regulation

The European Securities and Markets Authority has written to the European Commission urging clarificiation of some important interpretation issues relating to the EU Crowdfunding Regulation and suggesting a 'slight delay' to the proposed implementation date of 10 November 2021. ESMA says the delay would ensure that all the key technical standards are available to applicants and national authorities. I have summarised the letter for Leman Solicitors.  

Let me know if you need assistance with any application for authorisation.

 

EU Regulation of Cross-border Crowdfunding Services

The EU Parliament is about to adopt a crowdfunding regulation that will enable 'European crowdfunding service providers' (ECSPs) to help businesses raise funding directly from investors across the EU more easily than they can today. The regulation calls for the related funds flows to be handled under payment services regulation, and adds operational and prudential requirements related to lending and investment in securities. I have covered the regulation in more detail for Leman Solicitors in Ireland, as the EU regulation will be of little use to UK-based platforms owing to Brexit and the end of passporting, even where the regulation applies.

Since helping start Zopa, the first peer-to-peer lending platform, in 2005 I've acted for many peer-to-peer lending platforms and some crowd-investment platforms in the UK, as well as advising in relation to e-money and payment services since 1999. If you have plans in this area, please get in touch.

 

New Rules For P2P Lending And Crowd-Investment

A year after consulting on its proposals, the FCA has issued new rules for P2P lending and crowd-investment platform operators from 9 December 2019 (and certain mortgage rules immediately). I'm trawling through the detail, but have summarised the changes below. Let me know if I can help.

Originally, the FCA proposed to:

• set out the minimum information that P2P platforms need to provide to investors; 
• clarify what systems and controls platforms need to have in place to support the outcomes platforms advertise - particularly on credit risk assessment, risk management and fair valuation practices; 
• ensure arrangements are in place that take account of the practical challenges that platforms could face in a wind-down scenario; 
• extend marketing restrictions that already apply to investment-based crowdfunding to P2P platforms; 
• apply Mortgage and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (MCOB) and other Handbook requirements to P2P platforms that offer home finance products, where at least one of the investors is not an authorised home finance provider - to address a potential gap in protections for home finance customers who undertake transactions through a P2P platform.

Sure enough, the new rules:

• Clarify what governance arrangements, systems and controls must be in place to support advertised performance (especially credit risk assessment, risk management and fair valuation practices);
• Strengthen plans for the wind-down of P2P platforms;
• Apply marketing restrictions to protect less experienced investors in loans;
• Introducing an appropriateness test for an investor’s knowledge and experience of P2P investments where no advice has been given to the investor, and what the assessment should include; and
• Specify minimum information that P2P platforms need to provide to investors. 

In addition, P2P platforms that offer home finance products (where none of the investors is an FCA authorised home finance provider) must comply the FCA's Mortgage and Home Finance Conduct of Business sourcebook (MCOB) and other Handbook rules from now. 

New FCA Consultation on P2P Lending and CrowdInvesting

The FCA is consulting on proposed changes to the regulation of P2P lending and crowd-investment platforms. Firms have until 27 October 2018 to respond. While the Treasury recently insisted at EU level (for what that's worth, post-Brexit) that it sees a significant distinction between P2P lending and crowd-investment platforms, the FCA's proposals severely erode any such distinction.

The FCA is concerned that investors may not:

• be given clear or accurate information, leading to the purchase of unsuitable financial products;
• understand or be aware of the true investment risk they are exposed to;
• be remunerated fairly for the risks they are taking;
• understand what may happen if the platform administering their loan fails;
• understand the costs they are paying for the services the platform provides; or 
• may pay excessive costs for a platform’s services

As a result, the FCA proposes to:

• set out the minimum information that P2P platforms need to provide to investors; 
• clarify what systems and controls platforms need to have in place to support the outcomes platforms advertise - particularly on credit risk assessment, risk management and fair valuation practices; 
• ensure arrangements are in place that take account of the practical challenges that platforms could face in a wind-down scenario; 
• extend marketing restrictions that already apply to investment-based crowdfunding to P2P platforms; 
• to apply Mortgage and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (MCOB) and other Handbook requirements to P2P platforms that offer home finance products, where at least one of the investors is not an authorised home finance provider - to address a potential gap in protections for home finance customers who undertake transactions through a P2P platform.

P2P Lending Goes Global: FinTech Credit v OldTech Credit

Twelve years after the launch of Zopa and the peer-to-peer finance sector finally gets its first report from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the central bank of central banks. The report is surprisingly positive, given financial regulators' preference for the status quo. Basically, they believe that change increases risk and increased risk is bad, so innovation is both risky and bad. Similarly, they're fond of shoe-horning innovative services into existing regulatory frameworks without seeing that the innovation may itself be exposing and/or solving flaws in that system. At any rate, the banking situation must be pretty dire for the industry's global beacon to produce a positive report on alternatives...  But in the the interests of time I want to ignore the positives and answer a few criticisms:

Is P2P lending "procyclical"?

No.

In fairness, the BIS report only suggests that P2P finance represents the "potential for ...more procyclical credit provision in the economy", but I still disagree that this is a feature of the model.

Bank lending itself is procyclical, which is to say that banks lend lots of money when the economy is booming, yet try to protect their balance sheets when times are tough and we need credit the most. In fact, this was such an alarming feature of the recent/current financial crisis that BIS itself introduced capital rules that it thought would force banks to become less procyclical. Recently, moreover, the BIS's own Basel Committee reported that these rules are proving ineffective. They think there is too much bank credit available and/or the quality of creditworthiness is in decline.

If that's the case, then we really are in trouble, since UK banks have been lending progressively less to real businesses, and we aren't exactly in the grip of an economic boom...

Compare this to the rise of P2P lending. We started Zopa in 2005 when the 'spread' between high bank savings rates and cheap credit was actually very narrow (heavily subsidised by PPI revenues) - yet proved that lending directly between humans without a bank in the middle produced a better deal for both lenders and borrowers. This is why P2P lending has become ever more popular since 2008, while banks have sat on the sidelines waiting for the good times to roll. Lenders get higher interest on their money, diversify risk by lending to lots of people and businesses who are starved of bank loans - apparently leaving the banks with leaner opportunities...

But I believe the banks have simply chosen to chase higher yielding loans and other assets because their cost base does not allow them to make money serving the better risk customers.

Indeed, the BIS report acknowledges that banks have "left room" for platforms that enable people to lend directly to each other "by withdrawing from some market segments" after the financial crisis (which, I'd like to emphasis, still hasn't ended).  The report notes that P2P lending equated to 14% of gross bank lending flows to UK small businesses by 2015... only 5 years after the launch of the first P2P business lending platform.

So, P2P finance is actually counter-cyclical by its very nature.

The real issue, perhaps, is what happens when banks start being able to offer better interest rates and cheaper loans. Yet Zopa's early experience shows the new platforms will still be able to compete successfully (especially because those PPI cross-subsidies are no longer available: refunds and compensation have now reached £26.9bn, according to the FCA!).

Is it likely there will be a 'run' on P2P lending?

No. Far from seeing a potential 'run' on P2P lending platforms by lenders trying to get their money out, many platforms are seeing excess lender demand due to continuing low yields on bank deposits (not to mention high fees on investment products). Zopa, for example, has been closed to new lenders for some months, even while seeing record borrower demand, yet still plans to offer P2P lending within Innovative Finance ISAs. Everyone is chasing yield, not just the banks. But, again, the early experience shows that the rates will still be more attractive if and when banks are able to offer higher rates to savers, because they need fatter margins than P2P platform operators.

Meanwhile, the P2P model has expanded from consumer and small business loans into car finance and commercial property loans. But so far the regulators have protected banks against head-to-head competition for other forms of finance, such as retail sales finance or mortgages, through lack of reform to arcane procedures dictated by consumer credit and mortgage regulation and refusing to allow longer term finance to be supported with short term loans - which banks are allowed to do all the time.

So, rather than a run on P2P lending, we're more likely to see successful P2P lending operators adding a bank to their group, at the same time as expanding their existing P2P offerings. In other words, a twin-track attack on Old Tech banks and banking models.

Will P2P lending help solve problems with banks' legacy systems?

No.

There's no doubt that this BIS report and the regulatory obsession with 'FinTech' generally, springs partly from regulators' fervent wish that OldTech banks will simply take advantage of the latest trend to rejuvenate their systems for the longer term.

But there are many reasons why established retail banks won't do that - and will continue to passively resist regulatory edicts to do so. That's why the UK government had to impose the open banking initiative (not to mention sharing business credit information and declined loan applications); why the Bank of England has opened up the Real Time Gross Settlement system; and why PSD2 regulates a new class of  third party 'account information' and 'payment initiation' service providers.

Why won't the banks renew their legacy systems to save themselves? For starters, they don't actually have legacy "systems" so much as separate bits of very old kit connected manually by employees holding hands with electrical chord between their teeth using their own spreadsheets. So the shiny new government-mandated open banking interfaces will likely be connected to computers that aren't really party of any type of integrated "system" that, say, a Google engineer might recognise.

Aside from that insurmountable IT challenge, bank management teams are simply not incentivised or empowered to think about the long term, and all their key decisions are made (after a very long time) in committee to avoid personal blame.

So it's more likely that the aspects of 'banking' which are within the scope of P2P lending will gradually drift away from banks altogether, while activities outside that competitive scope will need to be reinvented by others, including new banks, from the ground up.

Will traditional banks launch their own P2P lending platforms?

Probably not.

Some have bought shares in such platforms and others have actually lent their own funds on P2P lending platforms. But that's a long way from allowing their depositors to lend directly to their borrowers.

That's because bankers make their money by keeping savers and borrowers separate of each other and treating deposits as their own funds. 

It's high time regulators admitted this to themselves and got on with the job of supporting more transparent, fairer mechanisms for allocating people's spare cash to other people who need it.

Is P2P lending an "originate-to-distribute" model?

No.

Here, again, P2P lending is a reaction away from this type of model and is transparent enough to reveal attempts to introduce it. BIS says that "originate-to-distribute" refers to the fact that neither the primary lender nor the operator of the platform retains any ownership or interest in the loan that is agreed. But this does not fully describe the model or its potential hazards.

The "originate-to-distribute" model may have that basic feature but the point is that it's driven by a market for secondary instruments (bonds and other derivatives) that are based on underlying loan contracts, where demand in that secondary market has outpaced the supply of loans. In that case, loans may start to be originated solely to support the secondary market. This transpired in the context of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, where investment banks arranged bond issues in a way that effectively concealed the poor quality of underlying loans. From their own problems with undertaking due diligence, they knew that the underlying loan data was hard to find and in many cases unreliable (hence the related 'fraudclosure' issue of investors foreclosing on mortgages they could not prove they owned). That's why the banks involved have since been paid billions in fines and compensation towards the repayment of bailouts (at least in the US).

But, as the name suggests, P2P lending - at least in the UK - involves a direct loan between each lender and borrower on the same platform, where the data concerning the loans is available to the participants, including lenders who may receive assignments of loans already made on the same platform. The visibility of the loan performance data and reputational impact for the platform operator if all goes wrong limits the temptation to conceal the original credit quality or performance of the loan.

So, BIS's assertion that P2P lending represents the same model or suffers from the same potential for moral hazard is not right.

It is possible for a lender to ask a P2P platform to provide it with access to some less creditworthy borrowers to achieve a higher overall yield, perhaps even with a view to selling the resulting loans to other lenders or even securitising them; but even if you deem that to be 'originate-to-distribute', the 'moral hazard' is not there because the data is readily available for all to understand the lesser quality or performance of the loan.

The BIS report cites the Lending Club 'scandal' in 2016. But, ironically, Lending Club is not based on a genuine P2P lending model at all, because the SEC refused to allow direct 'peer-to-peer' loans without full security registration requirements (just ask Prosper!). So the regulators forced the US platforms to operate the same securitisation model that the banks pioneered in the sub-prime crisis... We abandoned attempts to launch the direct P2P model in the US because this model is nothing new - as well as being cumbersome, convoluted and expensive. But even there the relevant 'scandal' was 'only' that when selecting a portfolio of loans to issue bonds to the relevant investor, Prosper selected some loans that did not meet the investor's specified criteria. Not great where the data is available, but the point was that the problem was spotted quite quickly because the relevant data was readily available, so the loans could be re-purchased by the issuer.  

The report also cites the problems at Trustbuddy, in Sweden, but the problems there were again detected early by new management looking at the collections data, who promptly alerted the authorities; and Ezubao, in China, which was a ponzi scheme operated between July 2014 and December 2015 that was detected quite quickly - certainly faster than Madoff's activities in the supposedly heavily regulated US investment markets.

It is worth acknowledging, however, that there is always scope for something to go wrong. This is why the UK P2P lending industry pushed for specific regulation of P2P lending from 2011; and highlights why regulators should stop their hand-wringing about innovation and get on with the job of adapting to change.

#PSD2: The FCA Clarifies The "Business Test"

In deciding whether or not a firm's activities are caught by the new Payment Services Directive (PSD2) as implemented in the UK by new Payment Services Regulations, one needs to first consider whether the activities are conducted by way of business. This is a question of fact and degree that can be difficult to answer. In the consultation on its approach to supervising the new regulations, the Financial Conduct Authority has helpfully done a lot more than it has in other areas to clarify when it considers that a payment activity will constitute 'a regular occupation or business' in itself, as opposed to being merely part of another type of business.

FCA's current guidance on the Payment Services Regulations 2009 states (at PERG 15.2, Q.9):

“…Simply because you provide payment services as part of your business does not mean that you require authorisation or registration. You have to be providing payment services, themselves, as a regular occupation or business to fall within the scope of the regulations. Accordingly, we would not generally expect solicitors or broker dealers, for example, to be providing payment services for the purpose of the regulations merely through operating their client accounts in connection with their main professional activities.”

The FCA has revised Question 9 as part of its proposed draft changes to the Perimeter Guidance to read as follows:

"Q9. If we provide payment services to our clients, will we always require authorisation or registration under the regulations?

Not necessarily; you will only be providing payment services, for the purpose of the regulations, when you carry on one or more of the activities in PERG 15 Annex 2:

• as a regular occupation or business activity; and

• these are not excluded or exempt activities.

Simply because you provide payment services as part of your business does not mean that you require authorisation or registration. You have to be providing payment services, themselves, as a regular occupation or business to fall within the scope of the regulations (see definition of "payment services" in regulation 2(1)). In our view this means that the services must be provided as a regular occupation or business activity in their own right and not merely as ancillary to another business activity. Accordingly, we would not generally expect the following to be providing payment services as a regular occupation or business activity:

• solicitors or broker dealers, merely through operating their client accounts in connection with their main professional activities;

• letting agents, handling tenants’ deposits or rent payments in connection with the letting of a property by them;

• debt management companies, receiving funds from and making repayments for a customer as part of a debt management plan being administered for that customer; and

• operators of loan or investment based crowd funding platforms transferring funds between participants as part of that activity.

The fact that a service is provided as part of a package with other services does not, however, necessarily make it ancillary to those services – the question is whether that service is, on the facts, itself carried on as a regular occupation or business activity."

Simlarly, in Question 38, the FCA proposes to state:

"Q38. We are an investment firm providing investment services to our clients - are payment transactions relating to these services caught by the regulations?

Generally, no. Where payment transactions only arise in connection with your the main activity of providing investment services, in our view it is unlikely that you will be providing payment services by way of business. In those limited cases where you are, the PSRs 2017 do not apply to securities assets servicing, including dividends, income or other distributions and redemption or sale (see PERG 15 Annex 3, paragraph (i))."

In relation to e-commerce marketplaces, the FCA proposes to add the following question to its Perimeter Guidance:

"Q33A. We are an e-commerce platform that collects payments from buyers of goods and services and then remits the funds to the merchants who sell goods and services through us – do the regulations apply to us?

The platform should consider whether they fall within the exclusion at PERG 15 Annex 3, paragraph (b). The PSRs 2017 do not apply to payment transactions from the payer to the payee through a commercial agent authorised via an agreement to negotiate or conclude the sale or purchase of goods or services on behalf of either the payer or the payee but not both the payer and the payee.

Recital 11 of PSD2 makes clear that some e-commerce platforms are intended to be within the scope of regulation. An example of where a platform will be acting for both the payer and the payee would be where the platform allows a payer to transfer funds into an account that it controls or manages, but this does not constitute settlement of the payer’s debt to the payee, and then the platform transfers corresponding amounts to the payee, pursuant to an agreement with the payee.

The platform should also consider whether they are offering payment services as a regular occupation or business activity (see Q9). Depending on your business model, the payment service may be ancillary to another business activity, or may be a business activity in its own right. Where the payment service is carried on as a regular occupation or business activity, and none of the exclusions apply, the platform will need to be authorised or registered."

The FCA also proposes to add Question 34A relating to "online fundraising platforms":

"Q34A. We are an online fundraising platform which collects donations in the form of electronic payments and transmits funds electronically to the causes and charities that have an agreement with us - do any of the exclusions apply to us?

Persons collecting cash on behalf of a charity and then transferring the cash to the charity electronically do not fall within the exclusion in PERG 15 Annex 3, paragraph (d), unless they themselves are carrying this out non-professionally and as part of a not-for-profit or charitable activity. For example, a group of volunteers that organises regular fundraising events to collect money for charities would fall within this exclusion. On the other hand, an online fundraising platform that derives an income stream from charging charities a percentage of the money raised for them is unlikely to fall within this exclusion.

Nor will an online fundraising platform accepting donations and then transmitting them to the intended recipient be able to take advantage of the exclusion in paragraph (b), as they are not a commercial agent authorised via an agreement to negotiate or conclude the sale or purchase of goods or services on behalf of either the payer or the payee but not both the payer and the payee.

Online fundraising platforms should also consider the guidance in Q33A."

There may be some confusion over whether a platform is an "online fundraising platform" covered by Questions 33A and 34A, as opposed to a 'donation/reward based crowdfunding platform' which I would suggest should be treated consistently with loan/investment based crowdfunding platforms under Question 9 above.

Prospectus Requirements To Be More Crowd Friendly

Under the new Prospectus Regulation adopted by the EU Parliament, the scope of exemptions from the need for onerous disclosure requirements will be expanded from late 2017. 

The regulation won't apply to offers of securities (shares and bonds etc) to fewer than 350 (previously 150) natural or legal persons per member state or no more than 4,000 natural or legal persons in the EU who aren't qualified investors etc; or where the total being raised in the EU over a 12 month period is less than EUR1 million (previously EUR500,000). 

Each member state can exempt offers from the prospectus requirement where the amount being raised over 12 months in the EU does not exceed EUR5 million (previously EUR10 million) - though there are measures to confine the offer to the relevant member state.  

Other rules are aimed at making the amount of information disclosed more proportionate. 

Consultation on Transposing PSD2 In the UK and Loads Of Other Stuff

Just when you thought it was safe to go on holiday, the Treasury let's slip that it will begin a 6 week consultation on transposing PSD2 in August, which is a bizarrely short time frame and awkward time of year, given the issues and scale of uncertainty involved.  

Kind of makes it tough to engage with clients, and for clients to engage the right management and staff internally.

Maybe that's the point?

Meanwhile:

• the FCA has just called for input on crowdfunding proposals; 

• the FCA also chose August to publish its final policy statement on the Payment Accounts Regulations; and

• the CMA is about to publish its final report into competition in retail banking.

At this rate, we'll have between Christmas and New Year to consider the regulatory implications of Brexit.

FCA Calls For Input On #P2Plending and #CrowdInvestment Rules

It's been two years since the FCA created specific rules governing peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investment in securities, and the FCA promised a review of those rules in 2016. That review has just begun with a call for input closing on 8 September. 

This comes at an important time for the industry, as the FCA's report reveals that it has only processed 9 of 97 applications for authorisation by P2P lending platforms (44 of which operate under a two year old interim permission) and only 9 firms have been authorised to join the 25 firms that were operating in the crowd-investment market during the FCA's interim review in 2015. This shows that the FCA authorisation process, and regulation itself, are significant 'choke points' in the development of innovative financial services, notwithstanding firm support for the sector from the Treasury and strong growth in supply and demand from consumers and small businesses on existing platforms. 

It remains to be seen whether the FCA will further complicate life for crowdfunding entrepreneurs and their customers or clear the regulatory path to facilitate the growth of alternatives to the declining supply of bank finance, likely to worsen post-Brexit...

Humans At The Heart of FinTech

My article on this theme has been published by the Society of Computers and Law in connection with the IFCLA conference, where I participated on a panel discussing disruptive technology in financial services. 

It is interesting to see how people's belief in the 'efficient market' and appeals to the authorities for help when things get out of hand is playing out in the context of the Ethereum project and the DAO!

UK Continues To Clear The Path For Growth Of Alternative Finance

Draft legislation has now been published to allow bad debt relief for investors in peer to peer loans, in addition to the new Personal Savings Allowance announced in the Summer Budget.

These measures are among those that address the key regulatory problems and perverse incentives that have been preventing the flow of finance to people and businesses who need it and improved returns to savers and investors. The first regulatory initiative was to regulate P2P lending, announced in 2013; while the first step in addressing incentives was to include P2P loans in ISAs - first announced in 2014.

In introducing the latest incentive measures the government says it remains "determined to increase competition in the financial sector, where new firms such as P2P platforms can thrive alongside the established players and compete to offer new and improved services to customers. This new relief will create a level playing field for the taxation of income from P2P lending when compared to the taxation of traditional forms of retail investment available from those established players."

The government's commitment is critical, given that the financial system is now less diverse than before the financial crisis blew up in 2008. Few bank reforms have actually taken effect - and some are being watered down. Recent fines and scandals also reveal little change in mainstream financial services culture from that described in the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and most recently in the damning report into the failure of HBOS.

From 6 April 2016, individuals investing in certain P2P loans will be able to set-off the losses they incur from loans in default against income they receive from other P2P loans, when calculating their savings income for tax purposes. 

In addition, under the Personal Savings Allowance announced in the Summer Budget 2015, the first £1,000 of savings income will be exempt from tax for basic rate taxpayers and the first £500 for higher rate taxpayers. An individual’s PSA will apply to interest they receive from P2P lending after any relief for bad debts. 

Need To #Crowdfund Your US Launch? Try Reggae...

... er, that should read "Reg A". 

I'm indebted to Anna Pinedo and Jim Tanenbaum for pointing out that the SEC has finally done its job under Title IV of the JOBS Act. As they carefully explain in a recent Mofo Alert, the amendments to Regulation A that take effect in about 90 days time will enable private US and Canadian companies to raise up to $50 million in a 12 month period. That entity could be the holding company for a UK start-up, for example, or possibly the US subsidiary of a UK start-up, so long as it has a genuine US establishment - you know, real people and office equipment and a decent coffee machine. 

Existing shareholders may also sell reasonable amounts of stock as part of the offering. 

And eligible investors include 'the crowd' - provided they each limit their purchases to no more than 10% of the greater of their annual income or net worth (with a similar limit for non-accredited corporate entities). 

It should also be possible to combine a Reggae Reg A offering with private offering, if you really, really need the extra money.

EBA Sees #Payments Regulation As Best Model For #P2Plending - Updated

When the UK peer-to-peer lending industry began calling for proportionate regulation in 2011, we pointed to payments regulation as the ideal model. By the end of 2012, about 30 firms from across Europe signed an open letter calling for that approach to the regulation of crowdfunding generally. And that was the thrust of my response to the EC consultation on the topic. After all, these marketplaces are all basically payment platforms that enable the wallet-holders to agree to lend or invest money rather than just pay it. They have far more in common than there are differences.

Unfortunately, the UK authorities were determined to apply the existing investment rules to the P2P model, with consumer credit rules adapted to cover loans to individual borrowers and some small businesses. So instead of a dedicated set of regulations dealing with common operational risks among all platforms, with some extra rules to cover different types of instruments, we ended up with rules sprinkled all over the giant FCA Handbook.

Since then, however, the French have opted to apply payments regulation to P2P lending, and last week the European Banking Authority suggested a similar approach.

Of course, the additional attraction to payments regulation is that it is the subject of a 'maximum harmonisation' directive that allows for passporting throughout the EEA far more easily than under investment regulation.

If I were a betting man, I would put good money on the EBA's approach eventually winning out, with the real battle being fought over whether there should be any restriction on the amount that individuals should be able to lend [see update below]. The UK, France and Spain have each taken different approaches to this question. I'm glad to say that the UK has been the most pragmatic in recognising that platforms will struggle to generate enough liquidity without the possibility for some individual investors to lend significantly more than others to any one borrower, particularly in the SME lending markets. As I mentioned in the context of the recent European crowdfunding conference, my sense is that French and Spanish platform operators will realise this problem as they try to scale...

[updated as follows on 18 March 2015]

The battle over the restrictions around who should lend on P2P lending platforms, and how much, seems to flow from the mistaken belief by some authorities (the EBA included) that 'loans' are somehow 'debt securities'. Ironically, in its discussion of why investor type restrictions might be extended to simple loans, the EBA opinion underscores why that should not be the case - and indeed isn't the case in the UK.

For instance, in summarising the risks to lenders involved in P2P lending, the EBA, states (at para 28) that "the assessment of an investment opportunity requires a profound analysis as well as a thorough understanding of the project or business of a potential borrower." Yet making a loan does not equate to an 'investment' opportunity (and you would have thought that a banking regulator could fully elucidate the difference).

A loan is just a debt - which is a simple enough concept for anyone to grasp. It chiefly involves 'credit risk', not 'investment risk'; unlike bonds, for example, which are typically held for investment purposes rather than simply to earn interest (hence the focus on bond 'yields' rather than the interest rate or 'coupon').

The EBA later refers to the need for "explanations about a project, financing mechanisms and other investor education material", which also seems to misunderstand the straightforward nature of credit. Later still, the EBA states that P2P lending "usually means that lenders enter into loan agreements with a borrower which is, in many cases, a start-up enterprise." But that is certainly not the case in the UK, where such companies typically turn to equity investors who are looking for a share in the growth of a business, rather than simply the repayment of their capital plus interest. A subsequent discussion of "investment advice" and "investment recommendations" also highlights the EBA's mistaken assumptions about the essence of P2P lending. It's almost as if someone simply substituted "loan" for "equity" in a section about equity-based crowdfunding platforms.

This mistaken classification of lending as an investment is doubly ironic, given that the EBA is responsible for policy related to payments, banking, savings and loans and not securities (which is ESMA's territory). In fact, were it not for the EBA's view that payments regulation is the best fit for regulating the common operational risks of P2P lending, I would suspect the it of trying to limit competition with the banking sector by pushing P2P lending into the investment world. Yet, somewhat weirdly, when it comes to the section on credit risk the EBA suggests that platforms might be "required to cooperate with a bank, either in the way that the bank processes the assessments [of creditworthiness] on a professional basis or takes over any credit risk by contracting with each borrower directly." Which also ignores the fact, of course, that banks are busy walking away from the markets now served by the P2P lending platforms!

The EBA is also being somewhat disingenuous in suggesting that P2P lending platforms should carry out criminal records checks on borrowers - an extremely time-consuming, personally intrusive and costly process that not even banks are required to undergo when making loans. Compliance with anti-money laundering regulations, PEP/sanctions screening and membership of industry anti-fraud databases are adequate and proportionate controls for screening borrowers. Likewise, P2P lending platforms do not represent any greater source of risk to a lender's personal data than many other types of business, and data protection law should govern this type of risk, as it already requires appropriate IT and information security controls.

Overall, one is left with a nagging concern that, while it has made the best choice of regulatory frameworks for controlling the common risks associated with P2P lending, the EBA has not really engaged properly with the concept or the sector. Let's hope that changes soon.

#Crowdfunding the EU

Suddenly it's all go on the EU crowdfunding front.

I'm still digesting last week's ESMA opinion on crowd-investing and the advice on how to regulate it, which is to be followed by the European Banking Authority's view on the regulation of P2P lending.

It's too early to expect anything conclusive - both ESMA and the EBA say they are merely supporting the Commission in its broader efforts to embed crowdfunding in a range of policy areas - but it's good to see official recognition of the benefits of crowdfunding, as well as the risks, and some sunlight on the highly technical challenges to accommodating the new business models. Let's hope they consider how any changes will impact customer experience, marketability and the need to scale these platforms quite quickly.

In addition to regulatory reform, it would be great if the EU agenda could evolve to include realigning traditional tax incentives to boost personal investment in new asset classes.

More on the detail soon!

Thoughts On The Growth Of EU #Crowdfunding

I've just spent a fascinating few days at the ECN Crowdfunding convention in Paris this week discussing the development of crowdfunding across the EU. The main focus was on regulation, since that is perceived as being the key difference from country to country. But of course there are other factors involved and these were also covered in the presentations. In particular, crowdfunding is a huge marketing challenge, given the vast advertising budgets of mainstream financial services providers and customer inertia. There are also many perverse incentives and implicit subsidies favouring the traditional financial models. I helped explain such problems in a recent submission The Finance Innovation Lab to the Competition and Markets Authority on retail/SME banking, for example.

A European twist on the scale and nature of the competitive problems was emphasised by an early presentation from our hosts, BpiFrance, a state financial institution targeting traditional funding at SMEs. It has 2000 staff in 37 offices and arranged funding of €10bn for 3500 French SMEs in 2012 alone. So not only do French crowdfunding platforms face a banking monopoly, but they must also compete against direct public programmes. With that kind of competition, it's little wonder the French crowdfunding market is only a twentieth the size of the UK! Thankfully, Bpi appears to have switched to supporting the development of many new private platforms, rather than trying fund plug the French SME funding gap all by itself - rather like the strategy adopted by the British Business Bank.

Of course, the SME funding gap is not exclusive to France. Christian Katz, CEO of SIX, the Swiss stock exchange, explained that the EU's 23 million companies face a funding gap of 2 trillion over the next 5 years. Yet only 11500 have access to the public markets. Currently, SMEs are creating 1 job for every 5 that big companies are eliminating. In other words, the companies that create the jobs are starved of access to working capital.

This kind of problem is not simply financial, and Joachim Schwerin, Policy Officer, DG Industry & Enterprise gave an excellent presentation on Friday explained how Crowdfunding features in five of the EC's key policies for stimulating economic growth:

• Improving access to finance, especially for SMEs;
• Financing projects that have found it hard to obtain traditional finance
• Boosting the digital economy
• Increasing the level of entrepreneurship, which is completely lacking in many EU countries; and
• Enhancing democracy, by enabling people to mobilise their savings to produce financial returns, rather than always having to trust their funds to banks and other traditional intermediaries that may not actually have their interests at heart.

Joachim outlined plans for extensive guidance to SMEs on types of crowdfunding via the EC's "Access to finance for SMEs" portal, highlighting the opportunities for SMEs rather than just focusing on the risks to investors. So watch that space during early 2015.

Many delegates were pressing Joachim to outline an EU regulatory timetable, but he was right to point out that this is premature. He confirmed that the EC is still in listening mode, which is as refreshing to hear now as it was in October. Regulation does not create markets, as the EC has discovered in its regulation of consumer credit and contract law. Indeed, it is plain from the recent French law and German proposals that regulating without an understanding of the market could kill them altogether.

For instance, the French authorities have limited participation in P2P lending to individuals who may only lend up to €1,000 per project/borrower. The authorities say this is necessary to ensure that lenders diversify the total amount they lend. This seems harmless enough until you realise the marketing challenge faced by someone starting a brand new P2P platform who cannot rely on a few large lenders to fund the bulk of early loans, or to step in where liquidity is scarce from time to time. Yet in more developed markets there is no evidence that lenders fail to diversify. In the latest UK market study Nesta has found that 88% of lenders say they engage in P2P business lending because they think diversification is important, which is supported by the figures:

"The average P2P business lending loan size is £73,222 and it takes approximately 796 transactions from individual lenders to the business borrower to fund a listed loan, with the average loan being just £91.95. P2P business lenders have, on average, a sizeable lending portfolio of £8,137 spread over a median of 52 business loans."

As a result, project-by-project caps are not a feature of the regulation of P2P lending in the UK, nor the rules allowing wider retail participation in crowd-investment. These regulations only took effect in April 2014, well after these markets were firmly established, well understood, and were able to benefit from the credibility that proportionate regulation can bring without being strangled by red tape.

Finally, it was interesting to hear Christian Katz's recommendations to help ensure the success of crowdfunding in the EU, based on how stock exchanges have developed:

• Clear, common terminology;
• Code of conduct - especially promoting transparency - e.g. disclose the details underpinning credit ratings;
• Platform stability/availability;
• Fund recovery - safeguarding customer funds and how to get money out;
• Cross-border - don't ignore potential that the Internet brings;
• Positioning crowdfunding - e.g. as a source of pre-IPO funding (under €5m).

Each of these points merits a post in its own right, but an EU code of conduct would seem to be a good way to focus market participants on achieving them. The team at ECN presented some early thoughts. Clearly the code will need to be consistent with applicable national laws and accommodate all the different types of crowdfunding. It should also be negotiated by the CEOs of platforms, as they understand the development plans for their own businesses better than the lawyers and the policy staff. Such codes have already been agreed by the leading participants in more developed markets. For example, the Peer-2-Peer Finance Association (P2PFA) has developed Operating Principles specific to P2P lending, and the UK CrowdFunding Association (UKCFA) has produced its own code of practice to accommodate donation-based and investment-based crowdfunding.

While it is possible that specific enabling regulation may be necessary in some countries to initiate the ability to establish dedicated crowdfunding platforms (e.g. allowing normal loans to be concluded on such platforms, rather than only participation loans, or lifting the €100,000 limit on equity crowd-investment in Germany, for example), the EC's approach of allowing platforms to develop in line with self-regulation seems the wiser than rushing to regulate in detail.

Developing EU Policy On #Crowdfunding

I've finally had a chance to catch up with the minutes of the initial meeting of the EC's "European Crowdfunding Stakeholders Forum" (ECSF) in late September. Clearly these are still early days and the Commission is rightly (and rather atypically!) waiting to see how the various types of crowdfunding develop at national level, rather than rushing to regulate.

Unfortunately, it seems there was no time to take account of the UK regulations on P2P lending and crowd-investment, which took effect on 1 April 2014. These are cited in either the European Banking Authority's submission to last December's EU crowdfunding consultation, or the AK Wien high level review of various platforms.

That's a pity, since the UK regulation addresses all the various issues raised in those reports relation to peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investment.

It's interesting that the AK Wien report calls for rewards/donation-based crowdfunding to be regulated like in similar fashion, the UK declined to include that activity - and even the US has excluded donation-based funding from the otherwise all-embracing US securities framework. Perhaps AK's concern is that Europeans won't even start rewards/donation platforms without explicit permission to do so. That would be consistent with the civil law expectation that governments should specify which activities are lawful, rather than the common law view that the law should follow commerce where necessary to resolve issues that arise. But, unfortunately, that's no way to foster the growth of a nascent industry, as the Commission has recognised in its subtle approach to this area so far.

It's encouraging, however, that both the Commission and the ECSF seem to be taking a holistic approach to crowdfunding generally. That also reflects the Commission's approach to regulating payment services, on which the UK industries' self regulatory approach to crowdfunding has been based. At least that may produce a more unified set of rules, rather than the FCA's multiple rule books governing the same operational risks at the platform level. Perhaps a more unified approach will emerge from the FCA's review of the effectiveness of its rules in 2016.

In the meantime, the ECSF should also consider whether there are any tax incentives for personal investors that may be impacting the growth of alternative financial services. Again, the UK policy work in this area should be instructive, as discussed in the Treasury's consultation on proposals for including P2P loans in Individual Savings Account 'wrappers'.

A Short History Of The P2P Marketplace Model in UK Finance

During a recent panel discussion at the annual conference of the Society for Computers and Law, I explained briefly how the online peer-to-peer marketplace, pioneered by eBay in the US, came to be applied in financial services in the UK. The slides are here, and below is a slightly longer written explanation. Note that the focus is on the history, rather than explaining the differences between various types of 'crowdfunding'.

eBay pioneered person-to-person sales of second-hand items in the US from 1995, proving the concept to be hugely attractive. The particular "'Aha!' moment" came when people actually paid for the item they'd agreed to buy, not to mention the delivery of the item.

In 1999, the team at X.com (later PayPal) expanded the eBay model into payments by enabling consumers to pay each other using a credit card. This was rapidly adopted by eBay users (to the point where eBay eventually had to buy PayPal as a defensive measure). Coincidentally, in the same year it became clear to the entrepreneurs who had created PlusLotto, an online lottery in aid of the Red Cross, that the payment part of their system, which enabled people to prepay funds in many different currencies to centralised bank accounts then log-in to their data accounts or 'wallets' to purchase lottery tickets with the balance, should be made available to other merchants. They started Earthport as a separate payments provider the same year, and I was among those asked to join the board of the new entity. The initial strategy was to roll-out the wallet offering directly to consumers and merchants. But in 2000 we raised £25m through a private placement - literally weeks before the DotCom bubble burst - to fund a switch in strategy. The plan was to leverage the marketing budgets of banks, telcos and major Internet portals to offer own-branded wallets to their customers. Of course, those plans ran into the headwind created by the tech slump. But I'm happy to report that Earthport remains alive and well.

Meanwhile, in 2003, a team at artistShare in the US adapted the P2P payments model to enable music fans to donate money to fund musicians and music projects. The reason for this donation-based model of 'crowdfunding' was the need to avoid US securities regulation, which is notoriously rigid and complex, and applies expensive registration requirements even to very simple loans. The battle to liberate that regime continues to this day (see below).

At any rate, late in 2003, a small group of executives left Egg, the internet bank (which also happened to be one of Earthport's early customers), to try to reinvent financial services. During their brainstorming process, Dave Nicholson, suggested 'eBay for money' and the idea took hold. Coincidentally, they approached me in the summer of 2004 to see if I could help avoid any US-style regulatory problems. By the time we launched Zopa, the P2P lending platform, in March 2005 we had moved away from the idea of eBay-style 'auctions' to a more automated marketplace for personal loans. Borrowers and lenders had told us they did not want to reveal too much about themselves to each other, but were happy to give Zopa enough information to guard against fraud, assess creditworthiness and match their bids and offers to produce loan contracts directly between them.

 

In 2010, the team at FundingCircle applied the P2P lending model to the small business lending market. They also enabled direct loans between each lender and business entity. But to provide security for the additional risk of lending larger amounts to businesses, they introduced a separate entity that would hold security over the assets of the borrower in trust for the lenders. That trustee entity could then enforce the security on the lenders' behalf if the borrower defaulted under the P2P loans. Since then, this model has also been introduced to the commercial property sector.

It was only a matter of  time before the P2P marketplace model penetrated the investment world. In 2011, Crowdcube launched the concept of enabling many individual investors to finance unlisted start-up companies in return for shares. And a team that included Bruce Davis, an ethnographer who had helped develop both Egg's and Zopa's marketing propositions, launched Abundance Generation to fund alternative energy projects by selling long term debentures to retail investors who could use the returns to pay their own energy bills.

 

The same year, the Peer-to-Peer Finance Association was launched to call for proportionate regulation of the peer-to-peer lending sector.

 

Since 2011 many different types of P2P lending, crowdfunding and crowd-investment platforms have launched. Approximately 30 platforms signed a letter to EU and UK policy makers at a P2P finance policy summit held in London in December 2012, and many others have launched since.

 

In March 2014, the first FCA rules took effect which specifically regulate both peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investment. The EU has since convened a "European Crowdfunding Stakeholders Forum" to help determine whether there is scope for EU regulation to help develop the sector.

 

Clearly we are still witnessing the dawn of this trend. 

 

PS on the US:

 

While this post has focused on the UK, it is worth mentioning that we attempted to launch Zopa's P2P model in the US during 2006-07. However, it was clear from our own regulatory discussions, and the subsequent experience of Prosper.com, that the Securities Exchange Commission was determined to view simple loans as securities that require registration and intermediation using the same model that applies to more complex instruments. Zopa declined to launch that type of model, but it had to be deployed subsequently by Lending Club and Prosper (a similar version was also deployed by Prodigy Finance in the UK, due to the need to support international cross-border lending activity). Essentially, rather than agreeing loans directly with individual borrowers, investors buy bonds that are backed by loans made to those borrowers by a licensed lending entity. The lending entity sells the loans to the bond issuer, which distributes the loan repayments to the bondholders. While the JOBS Act was supposed to liberate crowdfunding in the US, the SEC has been less than enthusiastic in implementing it. Fortunately, UK regulators have been positively supportive and it's important to note that the SEC does not have any responsibility to promote innovation and competition, while the FCA clearly does. 

EC Support For Crowdfunding

The European Commission today published its communication on crowdfunding, following its consultation in 2013.

The EC proposes to facilitate, rather than regulate - a strategy I wish they would adopt in most areas. Specifically, it plans to:

• establish an Expert Group on crowdfunding to provide advice and expertise to the Commission, particularly on the potential for a "quality label" to build trust with users; and promote transparency, best practices and 'certification';

• raise awareness of crowdfunding, promoting information and training as well as raising standards;

• map national regulatory and self-regulatory developments and hold regulatory workshops to ensure an 'optimal functioning of the internal market', and to assess if EU regulation is necessary;

• issue recommendations via the SME Envoy network;

• consider the possibility of matching public funds with private funds via crowdfunding channels, subject to State aid rules etc;

• support efforts to promote regulatory conver gence of approaches at international level.

There will also be two EU studies - one on how crowdfunding fits in the wider financial ecosystem and which projects use what type of crowdfunding; and another on the potential for crowdfunding to support research and innovation, which will include consider possible tax incentives.

The Commission will report on its progress during 2015.

Could The FCA Do More To Foster Innovation In Financial Services?

Previously I've suggested that two things are choking the flow of money to people and small businesses who need it: broken regulation and perverse incentives. So it's important to give some credit for work on both fronts.

Financial regulation remains overly complex, but at least some reforms have been made to welcome innovation and competition at the retail level. And the recent budget showed the government is keen to ensure that ISAs and pensions encourage people to put their eggs in more than one basket. The FCA has also done some impressive research into insurance add-ons.

However, for this momentum to be maintained, financial regulation must become even more welcoming of innovation and competition - and much simpler and transparent for everyone to understand. So here are seven suggestions:

1. Tailored rulebooks: By the FCA's own admission, about 10% of the rules spread throughout its giant, ever-expanding 'Handbook' are relevant to each regulated activity. But the FCA does not gather the relevant rules into 'tailored' rulebooks, as the FSA used to do. That means everyone must waste time and resources wading through the 90% of rules that don't apply to their given activity. But it's worth noting that the FCA still maintains the helpful “Approach” documents that explain its separate regimes for e-money and payment services. Why not adopt this same 'approach' in other areas?
2. Registered small firms option: The FCA authorisation process involves 6 to 9 months' work in advance of filing, at an estimated cost of £150,000 per firm (see note 10 from this Treasury/Cabinet Office workshop). It then takes another 3 to 12 months to become authorised, depending on the permission required. This makes funding the launch of a new financial service very expensive compared to an unregulated service, and the slow time to market increases the risk of failure (ironically). A 'registered small firms' option already exists in relation to e-money and payment services, and would reduce the cost and delay of market entry for firms preparing for full authorisation. It should be brought in more broadly.
3. Client-money banking platform: Many authorised firms are obliged to 'safeguard' their clients' money by keeping it separate from their own funds in 'segregated' bank accounts. UK banks can be particularly slow and uncooperative in opening these accounts, which delays time to market. This, along with the recent financial and IT problems amongst UK banks, suggests it might be wise to 'ring fence' segregated accounts on a separate platform, possibly under the supervision of the new Payments Regulator.
4. Small Investor Option: Any web designer will tell you that the more 'clicks' you put in the way of a consumer, the less likely it is the consumer will go through a process. So 'dialogue boxes' that require people to certify things or take tests to invest in bonds or shares will also deter them. That's a barrier to the adoption of new 'crowd-investment' services, which many people might prefer to try out with small amounts. In fact it's far easier to gamble on lotteries and bingo than it is to invest. So allowing people to be invited to invest up to, say, £250 in debt securities or shares per project on authorised crowd-investment platforms with a clear, fair and not misleading description of the risks, but without any form of certification, advice or appropriateness test would seem appropriate (see the French proposals for crowd-investment).
5. Platform-level regulation: current financial regulation operates on the basis of different types of activity related to certain types of legal instrument, regardless of the customer experience. However, the online 'marketplace' model is now being applied to many different types of financial service, enabling people to transact directly with each other in relation to payments, savings, loans and investments, for example. Insurance and other services will likely follow down this path. This offers the chance to removing doubt and duplication by regulating common operational risks with a single set of rules at the platform level, with relatively few extra rules for different types of instruments or different types of activity being financed.
6. FCA 'Sandbox': coupled with the registered small firms option, the FCA could maintain a more dynamic focus on innovation and competition if it offered a dedicated space or channel for evaluating new services - both inside and outside the regulated sphere - which would also help it decide whether to flex its rules to suit.
7. Seek solutions from outside the existing market: the FCA should not assume that every innovation is designed to circumvent the existing regime to the detriment of customers. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who have spotted opportunities created by poor banking and are trying to increase transparency and reduce costs. So where the FCA is aware of existing consumer detriment or other market problems, it could present these to the market in open 'innovation workshops' - similar to those fostered by the Treasury/Cabinet Office - and/or release them into its 'sandbox'.

Your thoughts?