最有看点的互联网金融门户

最有看点的互联网金融门户
国际资讯监管与政策

加拿大竞争局发布最终版fintech市场调查报告

2017年12月14日,加拿大竞争局发布了关于金融服务fintech领域科技创新的市场调查报告终版。终版与该局2017年10月6日发布的草拟版几乎相同,最大的区别就是终版加了执行概要。鉴于报告的长度,这一概要很有必要。

这份报告旨在为金融服务领域监管者和政策制定者提供指导意见。

加拿大竞争局关于促进金融服务领域竞争的监管意见

1. 科技中立。监管规定应该做到科技和设备中立,适应并鼓励新兴(和尚在开发中的)科技。比如,坚持要求"湿"签名(即要求本人用笔签名)会限制新科技电子签名技术的使用,而后者的安全性也有充分保障。

2. 基于原则。监管规定应该基于原则或预期目标,而不是用严格的规则来规定怎样取得希望目标。这样才能保证达到政策目标时又能运用新技术,监管太过束手束脚则不利。

3. 基于功能。监管规定应该基于监管对象的功能而不是身份。(比如如果一家银行和一家创企进行同一种活动,那他们就该种活动应该面临相同的监管)。这是为了确保所有主体面临平等的监管负担并且消费者选择两相竞争的服务时能获得同等保护。

4. 风险比例化。监管规定程度应与旨在降低的风险相适应。以上三点加这点可以确保提供同种服务的fintech创企和现有传统服务提供商在公平的环境下竞争。

5. 全国一致。监管规定在加拿大范围内应统一。虽然这方面已有进展,但各省和联邦不尽相同的监管规定使得企业合规耗时耗力耗钱。

6. 鼓励领域合作。监管规定应鼓励金融服务领域内合作,包括(1)监管者间合作统一监管政策;(2)公私部门间合作增强监管者和fintech公司间就各自内容的相互了解;(3)行业主体间合作将更多产品和服务推向市场(不违法竞争法的情况下)。英国、澳大利亚和香港目前鼓励帮助此类合作,加拿大也应如此。

7. 政策领导。在fintech政策方面,加拿大应指定一领导机构帮助fintech发展。这一领导机构可以作为其他机构的导入,为fintech企业提供一站式服务并鼓励资金流向金融服务领域的创新公司和科技。

8. 帮助接入核心服务。我局支持推广金融行业核心基建和服务的介入性,帮助fintech服务发展。fintech公司为了提供自身服务(如账单支付App)需要接入核心服务(如支付系统)。在恰当的风控框架下,这些公司应该被允许接入,不要让监管扼杀有用的服务。

9. 开放式银行业务。支持系统和数据更加"开放"(有时也被称为"开放式银行业务")。顾客同意及存在合理的风险减轻的框架下,允许fintech公司获得消费者银行信息可以让他们开发个性化比价工具和其他应用,鼓励竞争有利消费者转换服务提供商。国际上,英国竞争监管局已经要求实施"开放式银行业务"。竞争局近期发布的草拟研究文章中已提到数据尤其是大数据对fintech和其他领域的重要性。文章名为《大数据和创新:对加拿大竞争政策的影响》。

10. 数字认证。支持探索数字身份认证的潜力。数字认证可以降低获客成本(对新老公司都是如此)、减少消费者转换成本并帮助需要身份认证的监管合规流程。

11. 持续审查。监管框架需要经常性回顾审查,根据市场情况调整监管规定(如消费者需求和科技进步)以确保这些框架规定达到自身目的同时又不阻碍竞争。

On December 14, 2017, the Competition Bureau (Bureau) released its final report on its market study into technology-led innovation in the Canadian financial services (Fintech) sector. The final report is substantially the same as the draft report the Bureau released for consultation on November 6, 2017. The most significant change is the addition of an executive summary, which is welcome given the length of the report.

The Bureau’s report is intended as guidance for financial services sector regulators and policymakers. The following are the key takeaways, which we covered in more detail when the draft report was issued.

Bureau’s Recommendations For Pro-Competitive Financial Services Regulation

Technologically-neutral. The Bureau asserts that regulation should be technology neutral and device agnosticto accommodate and encourage new (and yet to be developed) technologies. For example, requiring “wet” signatures (i.e., in person with a pen) prevents the use of new digital signature technology that also provides sufficient security.

Principles-based. The Bureau asserts that regulation should be based on principles or expected outcomesand not strict rules on howto achieve the desired outcome. This is to allow for the implementation of new technologies, which might otherwise be barred by a prescriptive regime, while still protecting policy goals.

Function-based. The Bureau asserts that regulation should be based on thefunctions carried out by an entity, not its identity (e.g., if a bank and a start-up are engaging in the same activity, they should face the same regulation with respect to that activity). This is to ensure that all entities have the same regulatory burden and consumers have the same protections when dealing with competing service providers.

Proportional to risk. The Bureau asserts that regulation should be proportional to the risks that it aims to mitigate. Along with technology-neutral, device-agnostic, principles-based, and function-based regulation, proportional regulation would level the playing field between Fintech entrants and incumbent service providers that offer the same types of services.

National harmonization. The Bureau asserts that regulations should be harmonized across Canada. Although there has been improvement, a patchwork of provincial and federal regulations can make compliance unduly difficult and costly.

Facilitate sectoral collaboration. The Bureau proposes that collaboration throughout the sector should be encouraged, including (i) among regulators to enable a unified approach, (ii) between the public and private sector to improve understanding of the latest services among regulators and of the regulatory framework among Fintech firms, and (iii) among industry participants to help bring more products and services to market (while avoiding anticompetitive collaborations). The UK, Australia, and Hong Kong currently facilitate such collaboration and the Bureau asserts that Canada should follow suit.

Policy leadership. The Bureau proposes that a Fintech policy lead for Canada to facilitate Fintech development should be identified. The Fintech policy lead can then act as a gateway to other agencies, give Fintech firms a one?stop resource and encourage investment in innovative businesses and technologies in the financial services sector.

Facilitate access to core services. The Bureau supports promoting greater access to the financial sector’s core infrastructure and services to facilitate the development of Fintech services. Fintech firms often require access to core services (e.g., the payment system) in order to provide their services (e.g., bill payment app). Under the appropriate risk?management frameworks, Fintech firms should be provided with access, so that regulation does not stifle useful services.

Open banking. The Bureau supports embracing more “open” access to systems and data (also described as “open banking”). With appropriate customer consent and risk mitigation frameworks, the Bureau asserts that this will allow Fintech firms to access consumer banking information in order to develop bespoke price?comparison tools and other applications that facilitate competitive switching by consumers. Looking abroad, the UK competition regulator has mandated the implementation of “open banking” (the Bureau does not have this authority). The Bureau has recognized the key role of data (specifically, big data) in Fintech and other sectors in its recently released draft paper, Big data and Innovation: Implications for competition policy in Canada (see our further comments on this paper).

Digital identification. The Bureau supports exploring the potential of digital identification for use in client identification processes. Digital identification could reduce the cost of customer acquisition (for new entrants and incumbent service providers), reduce the costs of switching for consumers and facilitate regulatory compliance where identity verification is needed.

Continuing review. The Bureau supports continuing the frequent review of regulatory frameworks and the adaptation of regulation to changing market dynamics (e.g., consumer demand and advances in technology) to ensure they achieve their objectives in a way that does not unnecessarily inhibit competition.


用微信扫描可以分享至好友和朋友圈

扫描二维码或搜索微信号“iweiyangx”
关注未央网官方微信公众号,获取互联网金融领域前沿资讯。

发表评论

发表评论

您的评论提交后会进行审核,审核通过的留言会展示在下方留言区域,请耐心等待。

评论

您的个人信息不会被公开,请放心填写! 标记为的是必填项

取消

潘, 妍媛未央编辑团队

118
总文章数

TA还没写个人介绍。。。

两个“开放银行”概念,如何分得清楚?

常笑 1天前

2017年金融科技并购带动交易总量频攀高峰

常笑 02-08

投资愈加集中化,美国2018年金融科技交易增速可能放缓

潘, 妍媛 02-06

东南亚金融科技并购平台Tryb获3000万美元融资

Jon Russel... | TECH CRUNC... 01-25

瑞士与香港签署金融科技合作发展备忘录

JD Alois 01-25

版权所有 © 清华大学五道口金融学院互联网金融实验室 | 京ICP备17044750号-1