P2P #ISAs: FCA's Approach

Although we are yet to see the legislative changes required to include peer-to-peer loans in the new Innovative Finance ISA from April 2016 and regulate advice on P2P loans, the Financial Conduct Authority has helpfully set out its proposed approach for when the law does change. We have until 31 December to respond. Broadly, the FCA proposes to:

• give guidance on how disclosure rules will apply to including P2P loans in an IFISA - particularly where the P2P platform only has interim permission (pre-April 2016) and risks arising if the firm does not get full authorisation;

• consult on applying suitability rules to advice on P2P loans, including changing the application of the rules and banning the payment or receipt of commission in relation to making P2P loans (note that the regulation of advice generally is being reviewed, so those rules could also change in due course anyway); however, because direct holdings of shares and other investment instruments are not included in the list of products that independent financial advisers must consider when making recommendations, P2P loans will also be excluded from that list; and

• ensure any risks related to IFISA inclusion are disclosed, like whether they can be transferred or sold (the FCA considers P2P loans to be "a much higher-risk alternative to buying an annuity" but doesn't mention the risk compared to buying a Lamborghini other types of investment that also compete with annuities).

Keeping Humans At The Heart Of Technology: Conference Wrap

This is a long overdue summary of my closing remarks at the SCL Technology Law Futures Conference on whether humans can survive the advent of super-intelligent machines. The podcasts for each session are available on the SCL site.

I am confident that we can keep humans at the heart of technology during the current era of artificial narrow intelligence.  It seems we are a long way into the process of coping with computers being better than us at certain things in some contexts. The sense was that the dawn of artificial general intelligence, where computers can do anything a human can, is 20-40 years away. It's also possible, of course, that the machines may never completely exceed human capabilities - more a matter of faith, in any event, as it would only be us who judged that to be the case. 

There are clear signs that humans are using computers to enhance the human experience, rather than replace it. E-commerce marketplaces for everything from secondhand goods, to lending and borrowing, to outsourcing household tasks and spare rooms show that humans are working together directly to remove intermediaries by relying on faciltators who add significant value to that human-to-human experience. 

This underscores the fact that computers' lack of 'common sense' will severely limit their ability to replace us – not just rationally speaking but also in terms of a shared understanding of our own five senses, and how we co-operate and use that shared understanding with each other in subtle yet important and uniquely human ways, for example, simply to summon the smell of freshly cut grass. 

Misuse of machines by humans - to constrain choice, for example - will also hold back development or lead humans to develop alternatives. We have worked around technology-based monopolies in various industries, such as music, but we also heard how the few major mobile 'app stores' are not only becoming the preferred distribution platforms for software, but also choke points to throttle competition. Such attempts at control will prove futile if those platforms do not give us what we want or are not aligned with how we behave or fail to reinforce the shared sense of community that is a feature of, say, peer-to-peer marketplaces and the new distributed ledgers.

The point was also made that we should recognise the value in our freedom to make mistakes or to simply forget or fail to do something – indeed the fact that someone else has forgotten or failed presents an opportunity for someone else. Perhaps this is the key driver of competition and innovation in the first place. [So, would machines evolve to be so efficient that change would no longer be necessary? Superintelligence could be a dull experience!]

Yet it is human fallibility, not that of machines, which is behind most online fraud. Turns out that it's simpler and cheaper to hack the human operating system with confidence tricks than it is to cut through the security systems themselves. Ironically, in this context, it seems there’s more a role for machines to help us avoid being fooled by other humans into giving out sensitive information, rather than to evolve ever more sophisticated encryption, for example.

A key issue is that the evolution of machine ability and interoperability is adding vast complexity to the rules and contracts that govern their use. Layers and layers of rules, terms and conditions must knit together to ensure effective governance of even the humble home entertainment network. Of course, the earlier the lawyers, legislators and regulators are involved in this, the easier it is for governance infrastructure to keep up.  That point is often made by lawyers, but it was also very heartening to hear the direct invitation for more lawyers to be involved directly with engineers in the step-by-step development of driverless cars, so they are aligned with how we humans want them to work on our roads. 

Yet the speed of technological development versus the speed at which the law moves make it unlikely that the law and rules alone will be effective in directly controlling the development of machines, whereas incentives such as commission, fees and fines will likely prove more useful in nudging behaviour in the right direction and keeping interests aligned. How the economic models evolve is therefore critical - and a good area for less direct legal control of machines, particularly through the apportionment of liability and theregulation of markets and competition.

Economically speaking, however, it was pointed out that we are prone to overstating the impact of technology has had in the past, and overestimating its effect in the future. In terms of GDP growth, for example, it turns out there was no industrial 'revolution' but merely a steady increase in output in parallel with various technological improvements. Tech booms and busts are also evidence of this.

We also tend to get hung up on globalisation and the need for harmonious rules across regions, yet much of the benefit of the internet, for example, has actually occurred at local level, and most of us use our phones and email to stay in touch with local people. 

Against this background, the conference keynote speech provided an entertaining overview of artificial intelligence and the community behind it, finishing nicely with a list of the top priorities for urgent human attention. The 'Internet of things' - 50 billion connected devices by 2020 - clearly covers a vast area, so it's important to bring it down to specific scenarios, such as the home, the car, the streets and how sensors, software and machines in each context inter-operate. Other critical developments and scenarios deserving our attention are driverless cars; the use of drones in the context of both civil surveillance and warfare; and applications that control or monitor our health.

More on those fronts in due course, no doubt.

Thanks again to all the speakers for such a thought provoking series of presentations.

Can It Really Be #PSD2?!

The new Payment Services Directive (PSD2) has been approved by the European Parliament. Following the Parliament’s vote, in order to take effect, the Directive must be formally adopted by the EU Council of Ministers and published in the Official Journal of the EU. This is explained by the European Commission here. I understand that should be done by sometime in November. In the meantime, the official version is published by the European Parliament here. From that date of publication in the Official Journal, Member States will have two years to introduce the necessary changes in their national laws in order to comply with the Directive.

I have updated my note for SCL on PSD2 accordingly.

PSD2 - EU Sleight of Hand?

True to form, the EU Parliamentary process threw up an amended proposal for the new Payment Services Directive last Tuesday, leaving everyone two business days to consider it before this week's Parliamentary session. Conspiracy theorists will wonder what last minute lobbying victories were secured and what might have been different with a few weeks to consider them.

It seems pointless to review the draft, let alone summarise any changes, since further changes may well emerge this week from lurking MEPs. Who knows what will finally pop out in the Journal? Only those swimming in the primordial soup.

My summary of the June draft is here.

Guest Post at Open Identity Exchange - A Pragmatic Approach To Distributed Ledgers

The post appears here.

Thanks to OIX for the opportunity to support the initiative.

The Innovative Finance #ISA

The Treasury has announced the details of its commitment to extend tax-free Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) to include peer-to-peer loans from 6 April 2016, effectively adding a third basket for your nest eggs. The enabling regulations will be published later this year. In the meantime, the government is also consulting on adding certain 'crowd-investment' instruments to ISAs in due course.

From April 2016, there will be a new "Innovative Finance ISA" in which individual investors will be able to hold P2P loans (formally known as 'article 36H agreements' in article 36H of the FSMA (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, and "P2P agreements" in the FCA's Handbook).

Advisers will be able to advise on P2P loans within the scope of their existing FCA advisory authorisation.

For ease of administration, each P2P lending platform is likely to become the ISA Manager for the Innovative Finance ISA that covers P2P loans agreed on its platform. 

P2P platforms (and other relevant ISA managers) will not be required to enable customers to sell their loans or to move their loans to another platform. But platforms may, if they wish, facilitate the sale of loans on their own secondary markets (as some do already) and enable the transfer of the cash proceeds to another ISA manager - indeed customers must be able to withdraw un-lent cash withdrawn within 30 days. However, it won't be possible for you to transfer only part of the money you subscribed in that tax year.

The different rules for P2P loans mean that they won't qualify for Junior ISAs or Child Trust Funds, which are less flexible than adult ISAs.

FCA Clarifies (A Few) Misunderstandings On #ConsumerCredit

The Financial Conduct Authority has attempted to clarify some of the misunderstandings about who needs consumer credit permission and the interpretation of its rules and guidance on assessing creditworthiness and affordability. This is very helpful, but frankly has barely scratched the surface.

Long standing official resistance to shifting the regulation and supervision of consumer credit to the Treasury/FSA meant there was little time to do more than 'drag and drop' the old Consumer Credit licensing regime operated by the Office of Fair Trading into the FCA's world. But a lot less drag and a lot more drop would have saved great deal of time and expense.

Meanwhile, the confusion over permissions required and the 6 to 12 month authorisation time is driving many new entrants to launch into business lending space even where they would prefer to focus on consumers, sole traders and small partnerships.

The Innovation Hub is a great initiative, and a number of clients have taken advantage of this so far, but let's hope there is a solid programme for clearing the regulatory drag that is inhibiting more competition and innovation.