FinTech & Regulering

FinTech & Regulering Roundtable 18 november 2015

FinTech & Regulering Ella van Kranenburg, Meindert Jansberg, Bastiaan Bloemink

Agenda 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

Opening Voorstellen aanwezigen Wat is FinTech niet in deze round table: Koefnoen Presentatie Ella van Kranenburg: FinTech & Regulering Presentatie Meindert Jansberg; Technology en veranderingen in de sector Discussie over stellingen 17:30 Afrondende borrel met happen

Introductie Ella van Kranenburg • Keijser van der Velden Advocaten • Advocaat met specialisatie Financieel Recht

Meindert Jansberg • •

ZVP Management, Zanders Treasury & Finance Solutions Investor en partner/adviseur

Bastiaan Bloemink • •

Adviseur Charco & Dique FinTech, AIFMD, Wft, compliance

Presentatie Ella van Kranenburg

KEIJSER VAN DER VELDEN advocaten

FinTech & Regulering; nut, noodzaak en / of onvermijdelijk?

Round Table Charco & Dique 18 november 2015 Ella van Kranenburg

.


Wat wordt verstaan onder FinTech? • Geen specifieke juridische term • Diverse definities te vinden; • “an economic industry composed of companies that use technology to make financial systems more efficient”; of • “computer programs and other technology used to support or enable banking and financial services” • Andere suggesties?

18 november 2015

Ella van Kranenburg - FinTech & Regulering: nut, noodzaak en / of onvermijdelijk?

.


Gereguleerde financiële ondernemingen in de Wft • • • • • • • • • • •

28 september 2015

Banken Verzekeraars Beheerders beleggingsinstellingen Beleggingsondernemingen (denk aan vermogensbeheerder) Financieeldienstverlener (denk aan kredietbemiddelaar) Betaaldienstinstellingen (denk aan Adyen) Elektronischgeldinstellingen Clearing instellingen Premie Pensioen Instelling (PPI) Wisselinstelling (geldwisselkantoor) Afwikkelondernemingen (sinds 2014)

Jan Willem van der Velden - Ella van Kranenburg - Financieel recht in de ondernemingsrechtpraktijk

.


Regels financiële sector; vroeger was alles beter? • Wet toezicht kredietwezen van 1952 • Juridisch kader op grond waarvan DNB geldscheppende instellingen (banken) algemene voorschriften voor bedrijfsvoering mocht geven. • Algemene voorschriften waren sociaal-economisch of bedrijfseconomische van aard. • Bedrijfseconomisch: interne bedrijfsvoering van de bank (DNB beoordeelde liquiditeit en solvabiliteit ). • Sociaal-economisch: als algemene welvaart in het geding is. • DNB mocht kwantitatieve en een kwalitatieve kredietcontrole uitoefenen; bijv. bepalingen betreffende de maximale omvang kredietuitzettingen, of het verbieden van bepaalde soorten kredieten 18 november 2015


.


.

Regels financiële sector anno 2015. De ratio voorbij? • Wet op het financieel toezicht (Wft) • Lagere regelgeving; AMvB’s (zo’n 25) en ministeriele regelingen • Afzonderlijk beleidsregels, leidraden en interpretaties van toezichthouders; • 20 AFM beleidsregels • 8 AFM leidraden • 10 AFM interpretaties • DNB? • EU Richtlijnen (implementatie in Wft / lagere regelgeving) • EU Verordeningen (rechtstreekse werking) • Uitleg EU toezichthouders (bijv. technische standaarden / reikwijdte papers / opinies) • Burgerlijk Wetboek (consumentenkrediet, betalingsverkeer, Wohp) 18 november 2015



Regulatory landscape anno 2015

18 november 2015


.


.

Wetgever worstelt • 30 September 2015; Europese Commissie komt met “CALL FOR EVIDENCE: EU REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES” • 7. Does the Commission plan to return to light touch regulation that preceded the crisis? • …. The Commission is not putting hard-fought recent reforms in question. The EU has taken essential steps to restore financial stability and public confidence in the financial system. Our financial sector is now stronger as a result and in a better position to fund the European economy. • However, it is important that EU legislation strikes the right balance between reducing risk and enabling growth and does not create barriers that were not intended…. 18 november 2015



.

Ook EU toezichthouder worstelt: Crowdfunding als voorbeeld • Maijoor (ESMA) 29 October 2015 op ECN (EU crowdfunding network) conferentie: • … we remain concerned that a number of platforms appear to be making significant efforts to stay outside of regulation. ... One reason for our concern is that we do think that there are important risks to investors in investment-based crowdfunding, as there are in other financial services businesses. The discipline of being regulated can help firms to manage these risks more effectively than they would otherwise…. • We are also concerned that a growing number of Member States are implementing national regimes to regulate crowdfunding, which do not provide for such a passport. While these regimes may address some of the risks specific to crowdfunding, they pose challenges for a level playing field and regulatory and supervisory convergence. They could also make it harder for platforms to achieve the scale that they need. 18 november 2015



.

Bitcoins / Virtual currencies: vooralsnog ongereguleerd terrein, kan dat zo blijven? • Visie Minister Financiën; 19 december 2013 “Virtuele valuta als de Bitcoin vallen niet onder de reikwijdte van de financiële toezichtwetgeving. Ik zie op dit moment geen aanleiding tot aanpassing van deze wetgeving.” • Rechtbank Overijssel (14 mei 2014) stelt dat Bitcoin kan niet worden beschouwd als geld zoals dat bedoeld wordt in het burgerlijk wetboek. “Ondanks dat de Bitcoin op het eerste oog een aantal overeenkomsten heeft met wel wettige betaalmiddelen, zijn er op essentiële punten verschillen die maken dat Bitcoins niet als geld, maar als ruilmiddel moeten worden gezien.” • Visie Europese Hof 22 oktober 2015 “The court also holds that those transactions are exempt from VAT under the provision concerning transactions relating to çurrency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender.” 18 november 2015



Typen wetten die kunnen worden overtreden • Publiekrecht: conflict met (semi)overheden • Privaatrecht: conflict met contractswederpartijen • Strafrecht: economisch delict

• Vraag: is FinTech iets wat op zichzelf staat of zal het toch altijd onderdeel uitmaken van het financiële systeem? • Wat is uw visie..?

18 november 2015


.


.

Een (waargebeurd) voorbeeld; “en toen liep alles in de soep” • Payment Assistant werkt samen met Pay Faster. • Payment Assistant is niet gereguleerd. • Payment Assistant heeft twee bestuurders, de executive bestuurder is trustkantoor Trust Me met NL verguning (DNB toezichthouder) • Pay Faster is een PSP met NL vergunning (DNB toezichthouder) en aansluiting met credit card maatschappijen (Visa / Amex etc) • Payment Assistent biedt contracten aan merchants met o.a. een focus op kansspelen • Merchant Incredible Gains is een van de merchants van Payment Assistant • Incredible Gains wordt in Oostenrijk verdacht van witwas activiteiten • Payment Assistant wordt gezien als medeplichtig. • De brief van Oostenrijks openbaar ministerie belandt op de mat van Trust Me. • EN TOEN? 18 november 2015



FinTech; ongereguleerd wel samenwerking met financiële instelling • FinTech partij die samenwerkt met financiële instelling: • Regels voor financiële instelling werken door op FinTech partij (bijv. kosten / beloning?) • Voor financiële instelling moet de samenwerking mogelijk worden gezien als outsourcing. Impact op beheerste bedrijfsvoering / interne controle.

18 november 2015


.


‘Better regulation’

18 november 2015


.


Over KVDV

Email: www.kvdv.eu (website) [email protected] Telefoon: +31 629397407 Adres: Groesbeekseweg 96 6524DJ Nijmegen

18 november 2015


.

Pauze

Presentatie Meindert Jansberg

FinTech Round Table Charco & Dique

Meindert Jansberg Amsterdam, 18 november 2015

Agenda • Introductie

• FinTech • Trends • Impact • Strategic Paces • Example INRISC • Discussie

Introductie • In 2006 opgericht, Spin-off van Zanders Treasury & Finance Solutions

• Investeringsmaatschappij in FinTech en Clean Tech • Venture Development • Venture Capital • Corporate Finance

• Portefeuille:

FinTech • FinTech bedrijven leiden tot radicale innovatie in financiële markten

• > 5.000 startup • Markt groeit explosief

Trends financiële service industrie

Change of customer demand Broad access of technology Risk averse attitude financial industry Financial services least trusted industry globally

Tremendous growth of FinTech startup’s Strong growth of financial services by incumbents

Impact op verdienmodel

Strategic paces • Next Generation Financing • Crowdfunding, bartering, credit exchange, e-invoicing • Next Generation Payments • Value added services, international remittances, wallets, virtual currencies • Value chain & Platform Solutions • Banking software, cloud computing • Social and Personal Finance • Personal finance management, social trading, social finance, gamification

• Big Data • Data analytics, articifial intelligence, process mining, machine learning, API-management • Security and Risk • Biometrics, (social) risk analytics, location based and context aware security, authentication methods

Example of strategic paces

INRISC Independent Risk Scoring Support your lending activities with automated credit scoring

Vision “With INRISC we mean to provide the market with off-theshelf solutions that will ultimately enable the investment industry to benefit from more transparency on risk and pricing, specifically for alternative investments such as crowdfunding” - Press release on CNN Money INRISC is a digital scoring provider. We provide lenders and lending platforms with risk scoring engines. INRISC aims to set the market standard for automated risk scoring.

The problem with risk scoring No accurate risk scoring Most scoring models do not account for a more distinctive scoring based on the underlying industry and market statistics. This is in particular manifest in the SME market.

No fully automated service Credit analysis is labor intensive and often largely manually performed. This increases throughput time and costs.

No transparent pricing Most scoring models do not have a direct linkage with market observable pricings.

Risk scoring of SMEs SMEs are - by definition – more risky

SMEs tend to lie on the right hand side of the risk curve. To emphasize that difference in risk, INRISC specifically utilizes a carved out scoring scale for SMEs.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

AAA AA2 A1 A3 BBB2 BB1 BB3 B2

Most SMEs are more sensitive for business risks, regardless the skills of the entrepreneur. This implies a bias in the scoring of SMEs. Comparing a bond issued by a well reputed corporation (like Apple) with an SME loan is therefore unfair.

Very Low Low Moderate Considerable High 2000

0

A low risk on the INRISC scale (INRISC10) therefore cannot be compared to a low risk on the normal risk curve. This is reflected in our pricing of SME loans.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Our solution for SME lending Targeting the SME market spectrum INRISC’s model magnifies the bandwidth of the ordinary SME scoring spectrum. Through the magnification we can better distinct between the different companies and differentiate in scoring and pricing.

Use of financial input only We based our models on the least aggregate financial taxonomy. We also only use financial information; we do not score based on qualitative aspects. By using detailed financial data – processed automatically –we can provide instant scoring.

Mapping of scoring to market observable pricing We map our scoring to market observable curves and credit spreads. We therefore obtain transparent pricing based on risk profile and market rates. No hidden costs.

Credit risk scoring basics Borrower profile

+

Loan profile

+

Collateral

= Risk profile

INRISC uses risk scoring models customary to the banking sector

Credit risk pricing basics Risk profile

+

Market rates =

Loan pricing

The credit score is mapped to observable prices to obtain risk-weighted loan pricing

Discussie • Discussie

Disclaimer These confidential materials are for informational purposes only and is intended solely for the original recipient’s use. No one may reproduce or disseminate the information contained in these materials without the prior written consent of Catena Investments, and its originators and Catena Investments accepts no liability whatsoever for the actions of others in this respect. Catena Investments, nor any of its parent or subsidiary undertakings, or any such person's officers or employees, accept any liability for any losses or damages that may result from the lack of accuracy or incompleteness of this information. The information in this document may be incomplete and should be viewed in conjunction with verbal briefings provided by Catena Investments. All information provided herein regarding any transaction is provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes, or forms part of, an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, or an official confirmation of any transaction, or a valuation or price for any product referencing the transaction. Nor should anything herein be construed as a recommendation to adopt any investment strategy or as legal, tax or accounting advice. All market prices, data and other information contained herein is believed to be reliable but is not verified extensively. Catena Investments does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future performance, which will vary. This document speaks of its date and views expressed are Catena Investments’ views as of such date only. Catena Investments assumes no obligation to notify or inform any party of any developments or changes occurring after the date of this document that might render its contents untrue or inaccurate in whole or in part. Although any indicative information is reflective of the terms under which a transaction might be arranged, no assurance is given that such a transaction will be executed on the specific terms indicated, due to changes in circumstances or new understandings. Any possible transaction or investment referred to herein may involve risk. This communication has been prepared without regard to the individual circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Recipients should make their own independent decisions regarding any possible transaction or investment and, if necessary, seek professional advice. The distribution of this document in certain jurisdictions may be restricted by law, and recipients into whose possession this document comes should inform themselves about, and observe any such restrictions. 37

Stellingen Stelling 1 FinTech is oude wijn in nieuwe zaken. En gaat de financiële sector niet drastisch veranderen op de lange termijn. Toezicht en wetgeving zal de eisen die gelden voor de traditionele sector overslaan naar FinTech ten behoeve van consumenten bescherming.

Stellingen Stelling 2 Doordat de toezichthouder en de wetgever de creativiteit en snelheid in FinTech niet kunnen bijhouden is de consument degene die de risico’s van innovatie opgediend krijgt. Immers, is consumenten bescherming niet slechter geregeld dan bij de traditionele financiële partijen.

Stellingen Stelling 3 FinTech zegt nieuw te zijn. Is zij daarmee ook transparant naar de concurrentie om gezamenlijk de sector te verbeteren. Dit is immers een veelgedragen mantra in b.v. crowdfunding

Stellingen Stelling 4 FinTech is concurrentievervalsing doordat zij achterblijft wat betreft eisen die wel voor de financiele sector gelden. Dit wordt veroorzaakt door de wetgever en kan door FinTech zelf niet worden veranderd

Borrel

FinTech & Regulering

Recommend Documents