FinTech: BIS Shakes The Banking Snow Globe - Anything Could Happen, Nobody Blamed

At least 17 years too late, the Bank for International Settlements (the central bank for central banks) has become very concerned about the impact of technology on the finance world. So concerned, in fact, that it has... produced a report for comment by the end of October.  Cue another vast exercise in global regulatory group-think...

The scenario is already amusing, but the report is laugh-out-loud material. It argues persuasively for every possible outcome, like some management consulting report on e-commerce from the early days of the Internet. Some banks will survive, others won't, for at least 10 significant reasons. Choose your bank, take your pick. Though in reality every bank is probably subject to all 10 in some way or other. 

Recommended actions are lofty and bland. They do not herald a departure from "same business, same risks, same rules" mantra that got the banking industry (and the broader regulated finance sector) into the current mess, nor any realisation that "fintech" doesn't represent the "same business" in the first place. In fact, we heard all the same stuff from central bankers back in April.

Never mind the obvious overall conclusion that the sector as a whole is doomed to wither for being glacially slow to adapt, brittle, hidebound and herd-like. Even central banks and BIS itself are clearly at risk. Maybe that's why some of them (and securities regulators) have now resorted to banning "initial coin offerings" of digital currencies without even being able to coherently explain why. The lack of self-awareness is hilarious. 

Anything could happen, but rest assured none of the this lot will be blamed.

Of Brexit, Red Tape and Light At The End Of The Eurotunnel

A pragmatic approach to the Brexit debate is to ask whether withdrawal from the European Union would solve enough root causes of Britain's problems to make up for the inevitable disruption.

But we are yet to see that level of analysis, and I doubt we ever will.  

That, and the fact that opportunists like Boris Johnson are able to swing their booms from one side of the debate to the other in the hope of catching any old puff of political wind, tells me the UK's membership of the EU is just a political issue, unconnected to anything 'real'.

One thing that is clear, however, is that cutting the ties with Brussels will not automatically cut the UK's source of red tape: Britain is expert at producing its own. You only need to look at the NHS, the social welfare 'system', the Home Office or education to see how much of a mess the UK is capable of making on its own turf; and its approach to implementing EU law is similarly self-defeating...

Generally speaking, you might say that 'an Englishman's red tape is a Frenchman's business plan'. The English common law principle is that 'the law follows commerce' and we should be able to get on with something until the law forbids or restricts it; while civil law dictates that an activity is not lawful until the state says so. Another difference, somewhat surprising in light of the first, is that the common law system is based on literal interpretation; while civil law is interpreted on the basis of its purpose - the spirit rather than just the letter - and this is how EU law is interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

While the EU's civil law countries rely on EU regulation to tell them more or less how to act, the UK has not coped with this distinction very well. Firstly, the UK's attitude to EU membership means that it misses opportunities to influence the favourable development of EU law in the first place - the UK always seems to be on the back foot. Then, once EU laws are passed, the UK suffers from a policy of 'gold-plating' directives by simply copying them word-for-word into its own national laws which are interpreted literally under common law principles rather than reflecting the purposive interpretation that civil law member states adopt. So the UK creates several rods for its own back.

While it is said that the English courts do (or should) adopt a purposive approach when interpreting national legislation in areas covered by EU law, in practice this opportunity is not widely embraced either by officials or the legal and regulatory community. Once any awkward or confusing EU requirements are transposed into national law, everyone in the UK seems doomed to take them literally.

The result is a system that pushes the burden of resolving any EU regulatory awkwardness or confusion off the public sector's plate and onto the private sector (and, ultimately, the consumer or citizen). A recent case in point include the UK's approach to implementing the Payment Accounts Directive. There are others too numerous to mention.

I do have a little sympathy with the UK's approach to the EU legislative process. It is outnumbered by civil law countries who may not appreciate or respect the more reactive common law approach.  It is also tempting to avoid the expense in time and resources required to continually debate with EC officials whether UK regulation reflects the purpose of EU directives, rather than the letter. But this doesn't bother Italy, Germany, France or the other countries higher on the league table of those failing to implement European laws.

Maybe you could say this failure to navigate the EU legislative process is a reason to leave the EU, but it seems pretty feeble for the UK to lose the benefits of membership due to a political problem of its own making. At any rate, if UK ministers and officials would only take full advantage of the opportunity to resolve any problems in the formation of EU laws in Brussels and take a purposive approach to enacting them nationally, they would surely reduce any adverse impact on the wider UK community from laws that might be unduly restrictive.

Meanwhile, ironically, the EU authorities are beginning to take a more common law wait-and-see approach to regulation, having realised that regulation won't catalyse cross-border markets that don't already exist. Contrast the futile approach to consumer credit with the more cautious approach to regulating crowdfunding and virtual currencies/distributed ledger technology.  

In other words, the UK seems keen to leave when there may be light at the end of the Eurotunnel.

Isle of Man Goes Crypto-Crazy

I'm indebted to my colleagues in the Isle of Man for pointing me to the IoM's recent Designated Businesses (Registration and Oversight Act 2015, which imposes various registration and anti-money laundering requirements on distributed ledger technology. Do we have a poster-child for how regulation of new technology can go way too far?

The IoM compliance obligations are aimed at: 

"the business of issuing, transmitting, transferring, providing safe custody or storage of, administering, managing, lending, buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise trading or intermediating convertible virtual currencies, including crypto-currencies or similar concepts where the concept is accepted by persons as a means of payment for goods or services, a unit of account, a store of value or a commodity;"

This seems likely to be counter-productive, to say the least, given that the 'currency' aspect of distributed ledgers is often merely there to reward the 'miner' or processor of transactions or events that occur on the ledger, regardless of whether those events are themselves financial in nature - financial services being merely one of many different potential applications.

So, should every business on the IoM that uses, or might wish to use, distributed ledgers register with the authorities and introduce AML controls on everyone it deals with, just in case? Maybe so...

Two specific points to make:

1. ‘convertible virtual currencies’ are defined more broadly than one would expect:

“including crypto-currencies or similar concepts [neither term being defined, except by what follows…] where the concept is accepted by persons as a means of payment for goods or services, a unit of account, a store of value or a commodity”, 

Most definitions of a ‘currency’ require all these criteria to be met, not just any one of them. Imagine what would happen to the US Dollar, for example, if suddenly it was not accepted as meeting just one of the above criteria...  Indeed, for this reason many people disagree that Bitcoin - the most widely used form of 'crypto-currency' - is still nothing more than a commodity.

In addition, none of the typical exemptions under payment services regulations seem to be imported here. To take but one relevant example: consumer loyalty/rewards programmes are typically exempt on the basis that the rewards are only accepted as a means of payment within a 'limited network'. Do the local authorities really want every business participating in a loyalty scheme on the Isle of Man to register and apply AML controls just because the scheme involves distributed ledger technology? Maybe so...

2.  Similarly, the list of activities that trigger the relevant compliance obligations would seem to cover a vast array of potential services and their providers/users - recognising that these are distributed ledgers to which all computers running the protocol have the same access. Again, just think of consumer loyalty programmes as you go through the list:

the business of issuing, transmitting, transferring, providing safe custody or storage of, administering, managing, lending, buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise trading or intermediating...

Even payment services regulation, for instance, exempts technology services that support transactions without the service provider handling funds. And the whole point of the ledger is that no intermediary is actually handling funds - its all happening peer-to-peer amongst machines - indeed perhaps everyone's device is handling the funds. Furthermore, there will be instances where access to a distributed ledger is just one element of a wider system - as in the car-rental example, or tracking shipping containers - and it may not be clear to everyone that a distributed ledger is involved if it's just to share the location or state of a vehicle or container.

Still, the Isle of Man's approach might at least be useful in demonstrating how regulation in this area can go too far...

Poor Competition In Personal and #SME Banking (and What the CMA Plans To Do About It)

The Competition and Markets Authority has been investigating the state of competition for personal and small business bank customers, and the results are pretty shocking. The full report is here, the summary of findings here and the possible remedies are here.

We have until 20 November to comment on the findings and remedies (email retailbanking@cma.gsi.gov.uk). The CMA's provisional decision on remedies is due in February 2016 and the final report in April 2016.

Most glaring is the fact that 99.9% of all UK businesses are small - over 5 million of them - and the vast majority of them are sole traders. Yet small businesses do not benefit from most of the customer protection and other measures aimed at improving services and increasing competition for personal customers.

You would also think banks would do more to look after small businesses, given they are responsible for at least 5 million self-employed roles, and most new jobs come from that sector. But only 60% of SMEs survive beyond three years and only 40% make it past the five year mark. It's true that no job is for life, anymore, but poor financial services must surely be a factor in such high business death rates.

More has to be done to help this sector thrive. Have your say! 

Building Societies Abandon The Lending Code

A new version of the Lending Code has been released, simply omitting the name of the Building Societies Association which has ceased sponsoring the farcical idea that UK retail lenders should be allowed to regulate themselves.

Banks and credit card issuers still think it's a good idea though...

Banks Make A Mockery Of Their Self-regulatory #LendingCode

Readers may still be surprised to hear that Britain's retail banks remain self-regulated when it comes to their lending activities.

That means it's the job of their own Lending Standards Board to check that subscribers are complying with the self-regulatory Lending Code, not the Financial Conduct Authority (although there is a 'memorandum of understanding' between the two bodies written on the back of an envelope somewhere).

Of course, the Lending Standards Board tends to give its own members a clean bill of health...

Which is puzzling, because the LSB has just made the rather unfortunate discovery after reviewing complaints procedures that there is "mixed evidence to indicate that issues, once identified, [are] being reviewed specifically against the requirements of the Code."

In other words, the banks are blowing raspberries at the Code.

So, um, how could the LSB have given the banks a clean bill of health before now?

Does the FCA care? Or, in regulatory speak, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

It's been a farce from the very beginning.

8 Financial Services Policy Requests - Election Edition

If you've been lumped with the job of writing your party's General Election Manifesto, here are 8 financial policies to simply drag and drop:

1. Remove the need for FCA credit-broking authorisation just to introduce borrowers whose finance arrangements will be 'exempt agreements' anyway - it makes no sense at all;

2. Remove the need for businesses who lend to consumers or small businesses on peer-to-peer lending platforms to be authorised by the FCA - again, it makes no sense, because the platform operator already has the responsibility to ensure the borrower gets the right documentation and so on; an alternative would be to allow such lenders to go through a quick and simple registration process;

3. Remove the requirement for individuals who wish to invest on crowd-investment platforms to certify that they are only investing 10% of their 'net investible portfolio' and to either pass an 'appropriateness test' or are receiving advice - it's a disproportionately complex series of hoops compared to the simplicity of the investment opportunities and the typical amounts at stake;

4. Focus on the issues raised in this submission to the Competition and Markets Authority on competition in retail banking, particularly around encouraging a more diverse range of financial business models;

5. Re-classify P2P loans as a standard pension product, rather than a non-standard product - the administrative burden related to non-standard products is disproportionately high for such a simple instrument as a loan;

6.  Reduce the processing time for EIS/SEIS approvals to 2 to 3 weeks, rather than months - investors won't wait forever;

7.  Reduce the approval time for FCA authorisation for FinTech businesses from 6 months to 6 weeks; alternatively, introduce a 'small firms registration' option with a process for moving to full authorisation over time, so that firms can begin trading within 6 weeks of application, rather than having to spend 3 months fully documenting their business plans, only to then wait 6 to 12 months before being able to trade - others entrepreneurs and investors will stop entering this space;

8. Proportionately regulate invoice discounting to confirm the basis on which multiple ordinary retail investors can fund the discounting of a single invoice - it's a rapidly growing source of SME funding, simple for investors to understand and their money is only at risk for short periods of time.

Credit Where It's Due

Having spent the past seven years banging on about the changes needed to democratise the financial system, it's only fitting that my last post for 2014 should give a little credit to the authorities for making some very significant changes this year.

The FCA published its rules to specifically regulate peer-to-peer lending in February, and its rules on crowd-investment in March. At the same time, the Chancellor announced the expansion of the ISA scheme to include peer-to-peer loans. In the Autumn Statement, he announced that consumers who lend to other consumers and sole traders through P2P platforms will be able to offset any losses against interest received. And there will be a consultation on expanding the ISA scheme to encourage crowd-investing in bonds and other debt securities.

We are still at the start of a long journey. The rules could be simpler and the EU could yet muddy the waters if the UK position is not well represented. But if you'd asked me in 2007 whether so much would be achieved by 2014 - particularly on the ISA front - I'd have been optimistic (naturally) but expecting the worst. Yet in 2015 we'll have both the regulatory 'blessing' and the incentives necessary to enable people with surplus cash to get it directly to creditworthy consumers and small businesses who needed it, instead of leaving the money tied up in low yield bank deposits or having it eaten away by fees in managed investment funds. 

Perhaps this is partly why 2014 also saw the bank bosses' swagger and bravado turn to panic. The trends which are combining to democratise the financial system have not only revealed that the stuffed shirts are powerless to stem the flow of fines for corrupt practices on virtually every front, but those trends have also produced competition from the banks' very own customers. 

Hell, even their auditors are finally coming under scrutiny!

But let's not get carried away. While crowdfunding is growing at over 150% a year, the crowd will probably produce 'only' about £5bn of funding in 2015, based on Nesta figures and assuming a boost from the ISA changes. 

So, while we've come along way since Bobby "Dazzler" Diamond infamously suggested that the time for bankers' remorse was over if the UK was to recover, we will still have a small business funding gap next year - eight years after the financial meltdown. In fact, in many ways the financial system is in worse shape now than in 2007, with less competition and appalling inefficiency in banking, vast public sector debt, a larger 'shadow banking' sector than every before (depending on how you measure it), and many key economies around the world suffering low/no growth. Events such as those in Russia, Greece and the Eurozone are applying further pressure to a system that is still broken. In these circumstances we remain terribly vulnerable to financial shocks. 

Still, the UK government deserves plenty of credit for the changes announced to date. Whether they have come early enough to help us through the next storm remains to be seen, but at least the national funding solution now lies substantially in our own hands. 

If we don't take the opportunity to crowdfund the recovery, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Good News For #FinTech And #Crowdfunding in Autumn Statement

The government has announced bad debt relief for lending through P2P platforms; a consultation on whether to extend ISA eligibility to crowd-investing in debt securities and an intention to review some rules that add unnecessary costs for institutional lending through P2P platforms.

Individuals lending through P2P platforms to offset any losses from loans which go bad against other P2P income. It will be effective from April 2016 and will allow individuals to make a self-assessment claim for relief on losses incurred from April 2015.

The government will also consult on the introduction of a withholding regime for personal income tax to apply across all P2P lending platforms from April 2017. This will help many individuals to resolve their tax liability without them having to file for Self Assessment.

The government will call for evidence on how APIs could be used in banking to enable financial technology companies to develop innovative solutions to allow customers compare banks and financial products.

From January 2015, the majority of card acquirers will offer a new service for small businesses to receive the funds from debit and credit card transactions much more quickly. Two acquirers will not meet this commitment, and the government will ask the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) to examine whether small businesses are being disadvantaged as a result.

The government will allow gains that are eligible for Entrepreneurs’ Relief (ER) and deferred into investment under the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) or Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR) to benefit from ER when the gain is realised. The government will also increase the annual investment limit for SITR to £5 million per annum, up to a total of £15 million per organisation, from April 2015 and will also consult further on a new relief for indirect investment in social enterprises.

To better target the tax reliefs, the government will exclude all companies substantially benefiting from other government support for the generation of renewable energy from also benefiting from tax-advantaged venture capital schemes, with the exception of community energy generation undertaken by qualifying organisations. The government will also make it easier for qualifying investors and companies to use the tax-advantaged venture capital schemes by launching a new digital process in 2016.

The FCA and Mobile Financial Services

The Financial Conduct Authority is going to great lengths to deepen its understanding of the retail financial services market. Project Innovate is a case in point, as is the recent (interim) report on how consumers use mobile devices. However, both initiatives underscore the need for non-banks to engage with the FCA far more than they have to date, and to provide a lot more information about how, why and when consumers need or want to use financial services.

It's a bit unfortunate that the FCA has used 'mobile banking' to describe consumers' mobile activities in the financial services context. We need to get away from such bank-centric language. After all, the FCA points out that consumers don't just use mobile devices to check the balance of a bank account, a bank statement or access internet banking web pages. There are many mobile services offered by payment institutions and electronic money institutions, not to mention the providers of credit, investment and insurance services. Each type of service provider is bound by different FCA-supervised rules and regulations when dealing with us, so it's also a little ironic that the FCA is concerned that "consumers may be unclear about their rights and obligations when using mobile banking products and services".

But terminology is a red herring. The starting should be to consider what activities consumers are engaged in when they need to rely on financial services - and whether the required services are sufficiently accessible or useful.

Here the banks' mobile offerings provide a helpful illustration of how financial services can be misaligned with consumer behaviour. The FCA found that consumers are using mobile devices to access major banks' systems far more frequently than the banks estimated they would (50 times more often than visiting a branch and 20 times more often than a web site). This has caused capacity issues and outages in bank IT systems, which the FCA is not happy with. But the FCA doesn't seem to have considered that this over-reliance on mobile channels might also demonstrate how awkward it is for consumers to use bank services through other channels. 

In fact I doubt whether we really need or want to contact our financial service providers' mobile sites at all, other than in an emergency. Nobody, except banks, engages in "banking". We may use a bank's services, but only in the context of a much wider activity, such as buying a house or a birthday present on the way to a party. "Banking" is what banks think consumers are doing, because banks only view the world through the lens of their own products and not consumers' day-to-day activities.

The FCA needs to avoid falling into the same trap. I mean, there are plenty of great examples of seamless online customer experiences out there which the FCA could use as a benchmark.

Indeed, what this report emphasises most is the need for non-banks to engage far more with the FCA, particularly in the context of Project Innovate.

Alas, it may be too late for them to help shape the second Payment Services Directive...

Virtual Currencies Get Real

The Establishment has finally woken up to the reality of virtual currencies, but official responses are all over the place. Let's hope the industry can help forge some international consensus on how to proceed towards a supportive mix of proportionate regulation and self-regulation in the months ahead.

So far, UK officials seem to be the most openly supportive of innovation in this space. The Cabinet Office included virtual currencies in an open workshop in October 2013 (video here) and the Revenue issued a statement clarifying their tax treatment earlier this year.

In the meantime, the industry formed its own body in November 2013 - the Digital Asset Transfer Authority - to participate in the policy making process. Over 30 firms worldwide are represented, and many US Federal and State regulators attened the AGM in April 2014.

That wasn't enough for the Canadians, however. In late June they drew a line in the sand with specific regulatory measures aimed at "dealing in virtual currencies" (undefined), including restricting banking services to registered dealers.

Uncertainty as to what is meant by "virtual currencies" and "dealing" may explain why most other authorities have been careful not to rush. For instance, the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) released a report at the end of June that was designed to “stimulate a discussion” on appropriate definitions and how best to introduce risk-based controls. That seems to be an initiative that it would be worthwhile for the industry to engage with.

Last Friday, however, the EBA steered a strange path between the Canadians and FATF, requesting the EU's national financial regulators to 'discourage' their financial institutions from buying, holding or selling virtual currencies.  I've reviewed the shortcomings of that approach in an article for Society for Computers and Law. Let's hope wiser heads prevail - it can't be help anyone's cause for the regulated financial sector to completely lose touch with such an important area of innovation.

What the industry makes of all this sudden activity is not yet clear, but I'm sure it's all been much discussed at CoinSummit over the past few days and no doubt we'll hear something from DATA soon. Perhaps from a new Brussels office...

Eurocrats Need A Reality Check

The Society for Computers and Law was recently entertained on the topic of trust in Big Data and the Cloud, by Paul Nemitz, European Commission Director of Fundamental Rights and Union Citizenship (in the Directorate-General for Justice). Both immigration and data protection feature among the main responsibilities of his Directorate, so you can imagine Paul is a very busy man right now, and it was very kind of him to take the time to speak.

Right, so that's the polite bit out of the way ;-)

Paul was keen to challenge the Brits in the audience to be more pragmatic in their attitude to the European Union. He believes the UK is among those who engage with the EU irresponsibly on the basis that "everything that comes out of Brussels is shite". Instead, he says British officials, lawyers and academics should be focused pragmatically on how to engage positively to achieve better European policy and regulation.

Of course, it's an old rhetorical trick to characterise your opponent's views as overly simplistic, boorish and stupid. Paul knows that the UK's opposition to red tape is based on more serious and fundamental differences than simply declaring everthing from Brussels as 'shite', as discussed below. But as a Commission official, he's not able to enter into debates over the fundamental principles of the EU. It's his job to be a 'Believer' and get on with building the vision. He must take it on faith that the European Union is a single market, rather than a loose collection of disparate nations held together by red tape and political ambition. 

It suits some EU member states to accept that same article of faith, but not all, and the people in the streets certainly don't think that way - consumers have been worryingly slow to purchase across borders, for example. And the recent election results revealed that a huge proportion of the electorate remain to be convinced that EU governance is wholly worthwhile. 

In these circumstances, the UK's rather sceptical view of what comes out of Brussels is quite broadly representative, and the attempt to draw a line in the sand over the imposition of a fervent unionist as head of the Commission was completely understandable. It's also pragmatic. If the EUrophiles were humble enough to accept that the single market is still an ambition, they too would realise it's unwise to be seen to force the issue. People have to be brought along on the journey, and maybe the UK is a good indicator of how far they are being left behind.

To back his claim that the UK's attitude is simply boorish, Paul points to a 'typical' lack of empirical evidence for resisting provisions in the General Data Protection Regulation requring large firms to appoint a data protection officer and to facilitate fee-free 'data subject access requests'. He says these things work well in other EU member states already, and haven't driven anyone out of business. And against the UK's charge that the European Commission is needlessly committed to ever-increasing levels of privacy regulation, Paul points to surveys that show ever-increasing levels of concern amongst EU citizens about commercial and governmental intrusion into their private lives; as well as recent judgments from the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court curbing commercial and governmental intrusion into these areas (ironic, given that one of the ECJ's decisions was to declare Europe's own Data Retention Directive invalid).

Again, he's missing a sensible, pragmatic point. The UK's reaction is telling him is that when huge swathes of the population questionn the very existence of the EU, it's wiser to stick to the essential foundations and building blocks, rather than snowing people with confetti about day-to-day compliance issues.

However, I'm glad to say that Paul was able to explain how the European Commission is working on some important foundations, such as getting standing for foreigners to take action to protect themselves in the US courts; and preventing indiscriminate mass collection of the personal data of EU citizens by any government or corporation, inside or outside the EU. Those two things are very important to building trust in governments, as well as Big Data, and are the sort of fundamental constitutional changes that citizens would find extremely difficult to achieve solely through the democratic process - though the European Commission has climbed on the bandwagon of public opinion (or Merkel's personal outrage), rather than initiated pressure to achieve these outcomes in its own right.

I also think Paul is right to point out that businesses are wrong in the view that personal data is 'the currency of the future' or 'oil in the wheels of commerce'.  Money is fungible - we view one note as the same as another - and, similarly, oil is just a commodity. So the data related to money and oil are hardly very sensitive and can be dealt with through economic regulation. But people, and the data about them and their personal affairs, come with more fundamental rights that can't simply be dealt with in economic terms. It's important that citizens have a right of action against governments and corporations to protect their interests (though I think the Google Spain decision was wrong).

But Paul overstates the 'synergies' between EU regulation, trust and innovation. He is stretching too far when he says that vigorous regulatory protection is essential to the creation of trust between people and their governments and the corporations they deal with. As evidence for this, he claims that the UK's Financial Conduct Authority as doling out the largest fines in the EU for the abuse of people's personal data, and asserts that this has built trust in the UK financial services market. From there, Paul leaps to the conclusion that similarly vigorous regulatory attention is somehow one of the necessary pre-conditions to the creation of commercial trust generally. He then leaps again to the notion that commercial trust driven by regulation is a pre-condition for innovation because, "There is no trust in start-ups," he says.

This is all nonsense.

Here Paul seems to be looking at the world through the lens of his own area of responsibility rather than from a consumer standpoint. Very few of the FCA's fines have anything to do with abuse of customer data, and its fines are puny compared to US regulators in any event. And in survey after survey, we've also seen that the providers of retail financial services are generally among the least trusted retail organisations in the UK and Europe. Enforcement processes also tend to be slow, resulting in fines for activity that ceased years before, and depriving consumers of the opportunity to cease dealing with firms at the time of wrongdoing. So, relative to consumers' perception of other industries, complex financial regulation and allegedly vigorous enforcement action has been no help at all.

It's also strange for Paul to suggest that "there is no trust in start-ups" without the backing of regulation, given the vast number of start-ups that have achieved mass consumer adoption absent effective regulation - certainly across borders. Unless, of course, Paul still considers Google, Facebook, Twitter etc to be 'start-ups', which would be weird. This ignores the fact that, love 'em or hate 'em, such businesses have been far more responsive to consumer/citizen pressure in changing their terms and policies than the European Commission or national legislators have been in altering their own laws etc. Indeed such businesses have even been relied upon by governments to enforce their consumer agreements to shutdown activities that national governments have been powerless to stop.

Paul's view of start-ups appears to reflect the continental civil law notion that citizens cannot undertake an activity unless the law permits it; while in the common law world 'the law follows commerce' - in the UK and Ireland (and the US, Canada, Australia etc) we can act unless the law prevents it. The havoc that arises from these opposing viewpoints - and the differing approaches to interpreting legislation - cannot be underestimated. In fairness, the UK needlessly creates a rod for its own citizens by 'gold-plating' EU laws (transposing them more or less verbatim). The national version is then interpreted literally. We would be far better off adopting the purposive interpretation of EU laws and implementing them according to their intended effect. This may mean a bit more friction with the Commission on the detail of implementation, but the French don't seem to mind frequent trips to the European Court where the Commission objects, and meanwhile their citizens don't labour under unduly restrictive interpretation of EU laws.

None of this is to say that I disagree with Paul's claim that strong individual rights and regulation to protect them are not inconsistent with making money and healthy innovation. But I reach this conclusion by a different route, starting from the premise that retail goods and services must ultimately solve consumers' problems, rather than be designed to solve suppliers' problems at consumers' expense. Strong individual rights are only one feature of a consumer's legitimate day-to-day requirements, not all of which can be legislated for. Co-regulation, self-regulation and responsible, adaptable terms of service are all part of the mix.

Of course, regulation can be helpful in preserving or boosting trust where it is already present - as can be seen in the development of privacy law amidst the rise of social media services (and in the context of peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investment, for example). But regulation can't create trust from scratch, any more than Parliament can start businesses.

If only the Eurocrats would recognise these realities and limit their attention to areas where government action is essential, I'm sure they would find more favour with pragmatists everywhere.

Bischoff's Understated Record Speaks For Itself

The departure of Lloyds Banking Group chairman, Sir Win Bischoff, provides another reminder that nothing much has changed in UK banking. 

The so-called 'City grandee' has spent the past five years as chairman of a banking group that's been fined at least £40m so far, and owes customers £10bn in compensation for mis-sold PPI. The fines have included £28m for mis-selling individual savings accounts and income protection insurance products between 2010 and 2012. Yet Win still talks of banking with his 'stomach' (as did the Lehman's gang) and trots out the languid understatement that "all of us have to be very much more mindful of whether the product or service we provide actually meets the needs of the customer." 

Win doesn't need to say that he hates all this new-fangled regulation - we get that from the career stats - but he reminds us anyway, in typically understated fashion: "I still hark back to the days when I would have tea with the governor of the Bank of England and he wouldn't be sitting there with the rule book. He would say '"Win... is this the right way of going about it or should you be in this kind of business'." 

History doesn't record how often the governor actually said this to Win, or what Win said or did in response (if anything). But it's pretty clear that tea consumed in this manner was spectacularly harmful for the UK economy. Unless, of course, you count steadily declining bank competition, mortgage endowment mis-selling, consistent underinvestment in payment systems and a century of under-funding small businesses as wondrous achievements... (and, you know, I think Win just might!).

Anyhow, Win will have plenty of opportunities for cosy chats over a nice cup of tea in future, as he's off to head up the Financial Reporting Council, the accountancy 'watchdog'. They'll relish his capacity for understatement over there, too. You see the FRC has been having a little difficulty in defining the nature of scepticism in the audit context...  biscuit?

Optional Annuities Could Mean Working Pensions

Odd that Will Hutton should claim in The Observer, of all places, that making the purchase of pension annuities optional will end in long term social disaster. UK pensions are already a long term social disaster. Hutton himself points out that "400,000 people buy £11bn of annuities every year", yet "the annuity market [has become] overstretched, offering indifferent and often wildly different rates." 

This is because consumers have no choice. There's no competitive pressure at all on the insurance companies or their agents to remove unnecessary middlemen, reduce fees to customers or simplify products. In fact, the Financial Services Consumer Panel recently found that the annuities industry continued to focus on increasing its revenues through product complexity, even when consumers were given the option to shop around. No one in the industry seized the opportunity to make annuities more transparent and better value for the consumer. [Update on 26 March: Legal & General has suggested the market for individual annuities will shrink by 75% - rather endorsing the government decision to make them optional!].

Will Hutton argues that rather than make annuities optional "the response should have been to redesign [the market] and figure out ways it could have offered better rates with smarter investment vehicles". But that seems naive, given the FSCP findings. The industry had that opportunity and declined it. 

It's equally naive to suggest that less demand for annuities will mean losing a valuable opportunity for insurance companies to 'pool the risk' of funding pensions. The industry merely sees risk pooling as a chance to exploit asymmetries of information to line its own pockets. 

The only way for the government to shake up the cosy annuities cartel was to remove the implicit guarantee that everyone would have to buy an annuity. 

Mr Hutton then seeks to set up some kind of moral panic that the 'freedom to buy a Lamborghini' instead of an annuity will result in people simply frittering away their life savings. Not only does this suggest that he'd rather your life savings were placed in the grubby mitts of the annuities industry so they can buy the Lamborghinis, but it also insults the consumers who face the abyss of the annuities market. Their concern clearly arises from the lack of decent returns, not because they're eager to spend the cash on exotic cars.

Finally, Will suggests that the State is entitled to control how you invest your pension money because it allowed you to avoid paying income tax on your pension contributions in the first place. If you agree with that, then presumably you would say the State is entitled to control how you spend every penny of your income that it has allowed you to keep. This of course places a great deal of trust in the State's financial management capabilities that we know from bitter experience is ill-deserved. As a result, it's more likely that citizens will gain greater control over the allocation of 'their' tax contributions, not less (as I've joked about previously). But regardless of whether it's the State or the taxpayer who is in control, neither party wants the State to be saddled with the consequences of an uncompetitive and opaque annuities market. That would only suit the annuities spivs. Again, the only alternative is to expose the market to competition from all manner of transparent savings and investment opportunities. 

Importantly for economic growth, the freedom to avoid annuities opens up the potential for £11bn a year to be invested directly into the productive economy at better returns in much the same way that the new ISA rules will liberate 'dead money' from low yield bank deposits. Not only could we see some pension capital crowd-invested into long term business and infrastructure projects in a way that won't be interrupted by the need to purchase an annuity, but those in draw-down might also consider some 3 to 5 year loans to creditworthy borrowers as a way to generate some additional monthly income.

Want Virtuous Banking? Start By Splitting Banks Into More Than Two Pieces

Yesterday I was engaged in a discussion about 'virtuous banking' which seemed to stick on the definition of 'banks' and 'banking'.

No one does 'banking' - not even 'banks'. What we call 'banks' are actually giant corporate groups that carry out a vast range of quite distinct activities. Some are listed here, for example, and some were discussed by John Kay in his report on "Narrow Banking". These group activities tend to be broadly classified as either retail (utility) banking or wholesale (proprietary trading). But some of their activities arguably span this distinction, including the banking groups' role in creating money (by making loans with a central bank as lender of last resort) and money transmission (by co-operating in various payment systems). And of course wholesale business units often provide one or more services to retail business units within the same group. 

Those group activities also face into different national and international markets, with differing levels of profitability, growth, customer needs etc., and require management and staff with wildly different skills and levels of remuneration. But working capital will be allocated to the business units where it will generate the most return for the group as a whole, not according to the needs of, say, small business customers in the UK. And outdated IT systems in areas of low profitability, for instance, might only be replaced or upgraded if they actually fall over rather than to keep pace with the technological innovation. What might appear virtuous to one set of customers may not appear so to others. Taxpayers may not be materially impacted either way, or the impact may be so long term as to avoid detection. But banks are ultimately motivated by solving the problem of group profitabilty at their customers' expense (which makes them 'institutions' rather than 'facilitators', in my view).

Accordingly, figuring out what is 'good' and 'bad' behaviour on a day-to-day basis across a banking group is not only an extremely complex task, but also an archaelogical one. Regulation and internal policy only catches up with bad outcomes once they and their causes are identified. That process is painfully slow. A decade will have passed before any real regulatory changes related to the global financial crisis take effect in the UK, for example. Enforcement lag also means that fines and compensation bills come far too late to be factored into the main board's assessment of the likely return on capital across business units. They just end up as the the group's general 'cost of doing business'.

At any rate, regulation is a poor basis for assessing virtue. In the current framework, direct regulation only addresses some of a banking group's existing bank products and activities, not all of them; and is based on how banks do things, rather than on the activities and needs of customers. Some indirect regulations, like capital adequacy controls and accounting rules, are aimed more generally at how a banking group operates for the public good, but these are open to very broad interpretation in terms of how they impact specific products and activities. Market forces were previously thought to act as a control on behaviour. But the banks' conduct both before and during the global financial crisis has disproved that hypothesis. And they have few genuine competitors because complex regulation, the state guarantee of their liabilities and other subsidies intended to make the banking system safer have merely protected the banks from competition and innovation.

So it seems we can't even begin to be assured of 'virtuous banking' unless we are able to make and enforce that assessment for each business unit within a banking group independently. On that basis, splitting the banks in two is just a start.

2013: Levelling The Financial Playing Field

Six years of financial crisis have finally produced some of the legal changes that will expose the cosy world of regulated financial services to innovation and competition. But there is plenty more to do.

During 2013 we've seen consumer credit move to the FCA, the regulation of peer-to-peer lending, and the FCA's proposed rules for how the 'crowd' can lend and invest. And this week the Banking Reform Act implemented the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking and key recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.

Some may see these changes as a magnificent display in closing the stable door. But I prefer to see it as an opening of the floodgates. 

After all, the European Commission is consulting on its own approach to regulating online financial marketplaces; and the US states are competing with the Securities Exchange Commission on the regulation of crowd-investing.

So 2014 will see a lot of focus on enabling the growth of alternative financial services, at the same time as the banks become even more preoccupied with solving their own problems at their customers expense.

That bodes well for a market that grew 91% in 2013.

But, like I said, there's still a lot of work to do.

 

Failure Is Key To The Success Of Equity CrowdInvesting

An odd article on page 20 of today's FT suggests that the failure of some ventures to raise money somehow puts 'crowdfunding' in doubt, while page 4 cites Nesta research to show that this alternative finance market is growing rapidly. 

What's going on?

Well, traditional financiers have been forced to take crowdfunding seriously now that the FCA is consulting on specific rules to govern certain types (peer-to-peer lending and crowdinvesting in equities and debt securities). Some see this as an opportunity, and want to help these alternative marketplaces grow, while others perceive a threat that must be contained.

Those who feel threatened typically overplay the benefits of 'traditional' investment models, and mistake the strengths of the crowd-based models for weaknesses. 

For instance, venture capitalists often claim that theirs is 'smart money' compared to equity-based crowdinvesting. In fact, one is quoted in today's FT article as saying that VC investment brings "partners, skills and support that will nurture the business through growth over the medium to long term." This is rubbish. Venture capitalists spend most of their time looking for deals, not managing the businesses in which they have invested - and most of those businesses will fail anyway. They are not looking to build a portfolio of steady performers, they are hoping a few stars from their stable will return 20 to 30 times their investment. Board meetings are infrequent events at which VCs study the numbers. The occasional insightful comment may emerge, but these pale to insignificance compared to the 360 degree, 24/7 feedback any business experiences in today's social media world. Ironically, most of the time is actually taken up by management explaining the business to the VC directors - and quite properly so. But any responsible director can fullfil this role, and a business that can raise VC money or other funding is equally likely to attract directors with real subject matter expertise (and/or genuine independence) in any event. VCs don't have a monopoly on introducing good directors.

Related to this is the issue of discretion. Few people may be aware a business is seeking VC investment, but nor could they be expected to care since they are excluded from the process. So the search for venture capital generates zero interest among potential customers or other supporters of the business. Nor is the venture process likely to be very efficient, let alone successful. Start-ups and early stage companies typically approach many VC firms in the hope of getting a commitment from 2 or 3. It's a gruelling 3 to 6 month process involving lengthy, repetitive due diligence sessions that come as a huge distraction from the day-to-day management of the business.

Crowdinvesting, on the other hand, enables the business to engage in a single process that tests the appetite of both investors and customers. Flaws may be visible to the world, but this transparency provides consumer and investor protection while giving the business a chance to adapt on both fronts at an early stage. This may not guarantee long term success any more than traditional venture funding does, but it helps everyone avoid wasting a whole lot of time and money.

It's a process that venture capitalists might grow to like.

EU Red Tape - We Make EU Rods For Our Own Backs

The UK government has been running its own Red Tape Challenge for some years and at last the EU is getting in on the act (though it thinks member states are in worse shape!). 

Listed below are some cuts to EU red tape that the UK government has suggested, according to the activity that is being restricted. See if you agree.

The first of two big concerns I have is how these suggestions appear to citizens and businesses in the EU's civil law countries (i.e. virtually all of them). Generally, they want the state to tell them how to act by setting out rules in a civil code. As a result, commerce in those countries tends to follow the law. But in common law countries (e.g. the US, UK and the Commonwealth), we consider ourselves free to act unless a law restricts that activity in some way - our laws tend to follow commerce. 

So what we see as red tape that doesn't properly reflect how we do business, a continental European might see as his only right to act in a certain way. 

This distinction is blurring a little, both as a result of the UK's membership of the EU and the need for businesses in the US and Commonwealth countries to do business in the EEA. But it remains an important driver of what each of us considers to be 'red tape', and it needs to be considered when making or supporting a cut. Where necessary, a compromise might be to remove some of the more restrictive detail but leave a general permission in place, with some means of passing more detailed rules later if necessary. 

The other major concern I have is that UK officials have a silly tendency to interpret an EU law literally (as we do with UK laws) rather than taking a 'purposive' view of their intended effect as the European Court of Justice does. So UK officials present laws to Parliament for approval which 'gold plate' EU requirements, rather than just deliver the spirit of what is intended. A European would say we are stupidly making a rod for our own backs, and I completely agree. This has to stop immediately.

Competitiveness of EU businesses:

• Ensure the full implementation of the Services Directive across the EU
• Ensure data protection rules don't place unreasonable costs on business
• Refrain from bringing forward legislative proposals on shale gas 
• Drop proposals to extend reporting requirements to non-listed companies.

Starting a company and employing people:

• EU Governments should be allowed flexibility to decide:
• When low-risk companies need to keep written health and safety risk assessments
• How traineeships and work placements should be provided.
• Micro-enterprises (employing fewer than 10 people and have an annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total that does not exceed €2m) should be exempt from new employment laws unless they are sensible and proportionate.
• Pregnant Workers proposals should be withdrawn 
• Posting of Workers Directive should not introduce mandatory new complex rules on subcontracting  Existing legislation on Information and Consultation should not be extended to micros, and no new proposals or changes to existing legislation should be made
• Working Time Directive should keep the opt out; give more flexibility on on-call time/compensatory rest; clarify there is no right to keep leave affected by sickness 
• Agency Workers Directive should give greater flexibility for individual employers and workers to reach their own arrangements that suit local circumstances and give clarity to companies that they only need to keep limited records 
• Acquired Rights Directive should allow an employer and employee more flexibility to change contracts following a transfer.

Expanding a business

• Drop costly new proposals on environmental impact assessments 
• Press for an urgent increase of the current public procurement thresholds
• Exempt more SMEs from current rules on the sale of shares
• Minimise new reporting requirements for emissions from fuels 
• Drop plans for excessively strict rules on food labelling
• Remove proposals to make charging for official controls on food mandatory 
• Remove unnecessary rules on SMEs transporting small amounts of waste 
• Withdraw proposals on access to justice in environmental matters 
• Withdraw proposals on soil protection.

Trading across borders

• Take action to create a fully functioning digital single market
• Rapidly agree measures to cap card payment fees
• Remove international regulatory barriers which inhibit trade
• Reduce the burden of VAT returns, and stamp out refund delays
• Drop proposals on origin marking for consumer goods.

Innovation

• Improve guidance on REACH to make it more SME-friendly
• Rapidly agree the new proposed Regulation on clinical trials 
• Improve access to flexible EU licensing for new medicines 
• Introduce a risk-based process for the evaluation of plant protection products.

There is also a huge list of Directives in Annex 1 that businesses have said need attention.

We Need Let The Crowd into Financial Services

What a difference a year makes. At an industry event yesterday none other than Nicola Horlick, a well-known fund manager, confirmed her faith in crowdfunding as way of people putting money directly into the lifeblood of the economy, at a time when bank finance for small businesses is limited. Her own film finance vehicle raised £150,000 by issuing shares within weeks of an initial discussion with Seedrs CEO, Jeff Lynn, about how the crowd might help. A year ago, she wouldn't have given it a moment's thought. 

Of course, Nicola was referring to equity crowd-investing, which is the latest type of crowdfunding to burst into life. People have been donating to each other's projects via online marketplaces for nearly a decade and lending to each other online since 2005. Even the UK government is lending along side savers on peer-to-peer lending platforms. 

But these 'direct finance' marketplaces are no longer simply challenging a dozy bunch of retail banks. The addition of crowd-investing in shares and bonds is a direct assault on the sophisticated world of venture capital, private equity and boutique investment banking. 

Silicon Roundabout has launched a rocket attack on Mayfair.

This trend has raised a few bushy eyebrows down at Canary Wharf, where the paint is still wet on the signage at the hastily re-named Financial Services Conduct Authority. Not everyone at the FCA is excited by the prospect of just anyone being able to put a tenner into a business run by Nicola Horlick. In fact, the 'hawks' down there seem to believe that ordinary folk should content themselves with a low interest savings account, a lottery ticket and a flutter on the nags between visits to the nearest pub. If you can't afford to lose a grand, say the hawks, then you've hit the economic buffers. The banks can enjoy the use of your savings for free, while the government enjoys the betting taxes and the excise on your beer and cigarettes.

And we wonder why the poor get poorer.

You might also wonder, as I did yesterday, how 'the government' might explain to the same person who is banned from buying a share in the local bakery why he is still be free to blow £10 on a drug-fuelled quadruped at a racetrack, or donate it to a band that might go triple platinum and never have to share a penny of the upside with those who backed them.

But that's where you're reminded that the government never puts itself in the citizen's shoes; and there's really no such thing as 'the government' anyway. Just individual civil servants at separate desks in separate buildings, each looking at his or her own policy patch and waiting to be told what to do. Collaboration is not a creature common to Whitehall. In that world, no one at, say, the Treasury snatches up the phone to share a bold new vision for driving economic growth from the bottom-up with the folks over at Culture Media and Sport, or Business Innovation and Skills or Communities and Local Government. 

Or do they...?

At least those in Parliament, bless them, did collaborate in response to the ongoing financial shambles. Julia Groves of the UK Crowd Funding Association quoted some choice words on alternative finance from the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and I've set out the full quote below (as I have previously). Julia also put it very nicely in her own words: "Wealth is not a skillset." We need to let the crowd into financial services, and we need to keep the 'crowd' in crowdfunding. Let's hope this time the following message permeates all the way to the remaining hawks at Canary Wharf.

"57. Peer-to-peer and crowdfunding platforms have the potential to improve the UK retail banking market as both a source of competition to mainstream banks as well as an alternative to them. Furthermore, it could bring important consumer benefits by increasing the range of asset classes to which consumers have access. This access should not be restricted to high net worth individuals but, subject to consumer protections, should be available to all. The emergence of such firms could increase competition and choice for lenders, borrowers, consumers and investors. (Paragraph 350)

58. Alternative providers such as peer-to-peer lenders are soon to come under FCA regulation, as could crowdfunding platforms. The industry has asked for such regulation and believes that it will increase confidence and trust in their products and services. The FCA has little expertise in this area and the FSA's track record towards unorthodox business models was a cause for concern. Regulation of alternative providers must be appropriate and proportionate and must not create regulatory barriers to entry or growth. The industry recognises that regulation can be of benefit to it, arguing for consumer protection based on transparency. This is a lower threshold than many other parts of the industry and should be accompanied by a clear statement of the risks to consumers and their responsibilities. (Paragraph 356)

59. The Commission recommends that the Treasury examine the tax arrangements and incentives in place for peer-to-peer lenders and crowdfunding firms compared with their competitors. A level playing field between mainstream banks and investment firms and alternative providers is required. (Paragraph 359)."