Why did RBI deny banking licences to corporates again?, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Reserve Bank of India has disappointed big corporates that are looking to enter the banking sector, as it kept in abeyance the proposal of its internal working group to allow large industrial houses in the sector.

RBI said it had accepted 21 recommendations with some modifications of the 33 proposed by the committee in November last year. The most contentious proposal by the five-member panel was to allow large corporate houses as promoters of banks after amendments to the Banking Regulation Act. Experts pointed that RBI would face challenges in supervising non-financial sector entities, and supervisory resources could be further strained.

Former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan and deputy governor Viral Acharya were foremost among the experts who had opposed the proposed move last year.

“The history of such connected lending is invariably disastrous – how can the bank make good loans when it is owned by the borrower? Even an independent regulator, with all the information in the world, finds it difficult to be in every nook and corner of the financial system to stop poor lending,” they said in a joint article. In August 2011, the then RBI Governor D. Subbarao said in one of his speeches, “by far the biggest apprehension is about self-dealing — that companies will use the bank as a private pool of readily available funds.”

The argument against

While corporates can bring in capital, business experience and managerial competence, the biggest risk of allowing industrial houses to promote banks is the conflict of interest. A bank is an intermediary which channels public deposits to borrowers. It was not easy for supervisors to prevent or detect self-dealing or connected lending as banks could hide connected party or related party lending behind complex company structures and subsidiaries or through lending to suppliers of promoters and their group companies. RBI also has had an unsatisfactory record in its role as the banking supervisor. Recent governance failures in private banks can be traced to a lack of independence within the board.

The current status

Individuals and companies, directly or indirectly connected with large industrial houses, can participate in the equity of a new private sector bank up to 10 per cent but without controlling interest in the bank. Such shareholders are not allowed to have any Director on the board of the bank on account of shareholder agreements or otherwise, according to the RBI Guidelines for ‘on tap’ Licensing of Universal Banks in the Private Sector issued in August 2016. A group with assets of Rs 5,000 crore or more with the non-financial business of the group accounting for 40 per cent or more in terms of total assets or in terms of gross income, will be treated as a large industrial house, the RBI said.

Tech disruption

The real transformation in banking is coming from tech companies. A core function of traditional banking, payments, has already been disrupted by fintech. Now, Big Tech is pushing the envelope in financial intermediation. Data is central to the digital economy. It’s given Big Tech an opening, leading to the so-called DNA (data-network-activities feedback loop) advantage. Navigating the risks here is the emerging regulatory challenge. In this situation, there’s no pressing need to add another risk in terms of allowing industrial houses to promote banks.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

For bank regulators across the world, tech giants are now too big to fail, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


More than a decade on from the financial crisis, regulators are spooked once again that some companies at the heart of the financial system are too big to fail. But they’re not banks.

This time it’s the tech giants including Google, Amazon and Microsoft that host a growing mass of bank, insurance and market operations on their vast cloud internet platforms that are keeping watchdogs awake at night.

Central bank sources told Reuters the speed and scale at which financial institutions are moving critical operations such as payment systems and online banking to the cloud constituted a step change in potential risks.

“We are only at the beginning of the paradigm shift, therefore we need to make sure we have a fit-for-purpose solution,” said a financial regulator from a Group of Seven country, who declined to be named.

It is the latest sign of how financial regulators are joining their data and competition counterparts in scrutinising the global clout of Big Tech more closely.

Banks and technology companies say greater use of cloud computing is a win-win as it results in faster and cheaper services that are more resilient to hackers and outages.

But regulatory sources say they fear a glitch at one cloud company could bring down key services across multiple banks and countries, leaving customers unable to make payments or access services, and undermine confidence in the financial system.

The U.S. Treasury, European Union, Bank of England and Bank of France are among those stepping up their scrutiny of cloud technology to mitigate the risks of banks relying on a small group of tech firms and companies being “locked in”, or excessively dependent, on one cloud provider.

“We’re very alert to the fact that things will fail,” said Simon McNamara, chief administrative officer at British bank NatWest. “If 10 organisations aren’t prepared and are connected into one provider that disappears, then we’ll all have a problem.”

The EU proposed in September that “critical” external services for the financial industry such as the cloud should be regulated to strengthen existing recommendations on outsourcing from the bloc’s banking authority that date back to 2017.

The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) meanwhile wants greater insight into agreements between banks and cloud operators and the Bank of France told lenders last month they must have a written contract that clearly defines controls over outsourced activities.

“The FPC is of the view that additional policy measures to mitigate financial stability risks in this area are needed,” it said in July.

The European Central Bank, which regulates the biggest lenders in the euro zone, said on Wednesday that bank spending on cloud computing rose by more than 50% in 2019 from 2018.

And that’s just the start. Spending on cloud services by banks globally is forecast to more than double to $85 billion in 2025 from $32.1 billion in 2020, according to data from technology research firm IDC shared with Reuters.

An IDC survey of 50 major banks globally identified just six primary providers of cloud services: IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Alibaba and Oracle.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) – the largest cloud provider according to Synergy Group – posted sales of $28.3 billion in the six months to June, up 35% on the prior year and higher than its annual revenue of $25.7 billion as recently as 2018.

While all industries have ramped up cloud spending, analysts told Reuters that financial services firms had moved faster since the pandemic after an explosion in demand for online banking and emergency lending schemes.

“Banks are still very diligent but they have gained a higher level of comfort with the model and are moving at a fairly rapid pace,” said Jason Malo, director analyst at consultants Gartner.

Regulators worry that cloud failures would cause banking systems to fall over and stop people accessing their money, but say they have little visibility over cloud providers.

Last month, the Bank of England said big tech companies could dictate terms and conditions to financial firms and were not always providing enough information for their clients to monitor risks – and that “secrecy” had to end.

There is also concern that banks may not be spreading their risk enough among cloud providers.

Google told Reuters that less than a fifth of financial firms were using multiple clouds in case one failed, according to a recent survey, although 88% of those that did not spread their risk yet planned to do so within a year.

Central bank sources said part of the solution may be some form of mechanism that offers reassurance on resilience from cloud providers to banks to mitigate the sector’s aggregate exposure to one cloud service – with the banking regulator having the overall vantage point.

“Regardless of the division of control responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the bank, the bank is ultimately responsible for the effectiveness of the control environment,” the U.S. Federal Reserve said in draft guidance issued to lenders last month.

FINRA, which regulates Wall Street brokers, published a report on Monday ahead of potential rule changes to ensure that using the cloud does not harm the market or investors.

Being able to switch cloud providers easily when needed is, however, a task that is more easily said than done and could introduce disruptions to business, the FINRA report said.

Banks and tech firms contest the suggestion that greater adoption of the cloud is making the financial system’s infrastructure inherently riskier.

Adrian Poole, director for financial services in the United Kingdom and Ireland for Google Cloud, said the cloud can be more effective in bolstering a bank’s security capabilities than by building it in-house.

British digital lender Zopa said it had moved 80% of its transactions to the cloud and was working to mitigate risks. Zopa Chief Executive Jaidev Janardana said the company was also deliberately leaning on tech firms’ expertise.

“Cloud providers invest a lot of resources in security at a scale that few individual companies could manage,” he said.

Google’s Poole said the company was open to working more closely with financial regulators.

“We may one day see regulators pulling data on demand from regulated banks with cloud-enabled application programming interfaces (APIs), instead of waiting for banks to periodically push data at them,” he said.

NatWest’s McNamara said the bank was collaborating closely with tech firms and regulators to mitigate risks, and had put alternative services in place in case things went wrong.

“The buck stops with us,” McNamara said. “We don’t put all our eggs in one basket.”

One problem, though, is that not all banks have a full understanding of the risks to resiliency that could come with a wholesale shift to the cloud, said Jost Hoppermann, principal analyst at Forrester, particularly the smaller lenders.

“Some banks do not have the necessary know-how,” he said. “They think doing this will vanish all their problems, and certainly that isn’t true.”



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

BIS, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less



By Marc Jones

LONDON: Central banks and financial regulators urgently need to get to grips with the growing influence of ‘Big Tech‘, according to top officials from central bank umbrella group the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Global watchdogs are increasingly wary that the huge amounts of data controlled by groups such as Facebook, Google, Amazon and Alibaba could allow them to reshape finance so rapidly that it destabilises entire banking systems.

The BIS, in a paper led by its head Agustin Carstens, pointed to examples such as China where the two big tech payment firms Alipay and WeChat Pay now account for 94% of the mobile payments market.

China has already rattled its markets with a series of clampdowns https://www.reuters.com/world/china/no-gain-without-pain-why-chinas-reform-push-must-hurt-investors-2021-07-28 on top tech and e-commerce firms. Last November regulators torpedoed the public listing of Jack Ma’s fintech Ant Group and in the nine months since other tech giants and, lately, tutoring firms, have all faced scrutiny.

In many other jurisdictions too, tech firms are rapidly establishing footprints, with some also lending to individuals and small businesses as well as offering insurance and wealth management services.

“The entry of big techs into financial services gives rise to new challenges surrounding the concentration of market power and data governance,” the BIS paper https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull45.pdf published on Monday said.

There was scope for “specific entity-based rules” notably in the European Union, China and the United States, it added.

“Any impact on the integrity of the monetary system arising from the emergence of dominant platforms ought to be a key concern for the central bank.”

Stablecoins – cryptocurrencies pegged to existing currencies such as Facebook’s Diem – and other Big Tech initiatives could be “a game changer” for the monetary system, the paper added, if the “network effects” of social media and e-commerce platforms turbo-charged their uptake.

It could lead to a fragmentation of existing payment infrastructures to the detriment of the public good. “Given the potential for rapid change, the absence of currently dominant platforms should not be a source of comfort for central banks,” the paper said.

It said they should anticipate developments and formulate policy based on possible scenarios where Big Tech initiatives are already reshaping payments and other parts of financial systems.

“Central banks and financial regulators should invest with urgency in monitoring and understanding these developments” it added. “In this way, they can be prepared to act quickly when needed.”



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

RBI worried over growing clout of Amazon, Google and Facebook in financial services in India, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


As Amazons and Googles line up expansion in financial services in India, the Reserve Bank of India has expressed concerns over their presence.

Big Tech is a term used for the five most dominant information technology firms in the world —Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft—that have market capitalisation ranging between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, each.

“Big Techs offer a wide range of digital financial services…of several advanced and emerging market economies. While this holds the promise of supporting financial inclusion and generating lasting efficiency gains, including by encouraging the competitiveness of banks, important policy issues arise. Specifically, concerns have intensified around a level playing field with banks, operational risk, too-big-to-fail issues, challenges for antitrust rules, cybersecurity and data privacy,” RBI said in its Financial Stability Report.

Big techs present at least three unique challenges. First, they straddle many different (non-financial) lines of business with sometimes opaque overarching governance structures. Second, they have the potential to become dominant players in financial services.

Third, big techs are generally able to overcome limits to scale in financial services provision by exploiting network effects. it said. Interestingly, the RBI concern comes at a time when the government is engaged in a tussle with the companies over media rules.

For central banks and financial regulators, financial stability objectives may be best pursued by blending activity and entity-based prudential regulation of big techs. An activity-based approach is already applied in areas such as anti-money laundering [AML] /combating the financing of terrorism; an activity-based approach is the provision of cloud services, where minimising operational and in particular, cyber risk is paramount, it said. Furthermore, as the digital economy expands across borders, international coordination of rules and standards becomes more pressing, it said.

Growing Big Tech clout

Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon are leveraging their huge user bases to push their financial services. With consumer user data at hand, these companies can use it to curate personal financial products for them. which entered Indian fintech market in 2016 with Amazon Pay, has taken several strides. It has partnered ICICI Bank to issue credit cards, become a part of the Indian government’s payment network through the Amazon Pay UPI, launched insurance services, and entered into the digital gold space.

Google has partnered Wise and Western Union to enter the $470 billion remittance market under which Google users in the US can send money in Inda.

Also Read: BigTech and Cyber are the major risks for Banks and FIs: Sopnendu Mohanty, MAS



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

China crackdown cuts Big Tech down to size, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Shanghai, March 21, 2021 -Tighter regulations, billions in lost overseas share value and government pledges to get even tougher — Chinese tech giants are reeling under what looks like a sustained Big Brother assault on innovation and enterprise.

But there’s a reason why the escalating crackdown is largely drawing shrugs from Chinese consumers: it is widely seen as necessary.

Concern is rising in China over chaotic online lending and accusations of powerful platforms squeezing merchants and misusing consumer data, reflecting global unease with Big Tech that has Facebook, Google and others also facing scrutiny at home and abroad.

“With China, it immediately becomes about the Communist Party. But if the UK government were doing this, people would probably be OK with it,” said Jeffrey Towson, head of research at Asia Tech Strategy.

“These actions look quite reasonable.”

Companies such as e-commerce giants Alibaba and JD.com, along with messaging-and-gaming colossus Tencent, are among the world’s most valuable businesses, feasting on growing Chinese digital lifestyles and a government ban on major US competitors.

But they have become victims of their own success.

The troubles burst into public view last October when Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma committed the cardinal sin of publicly criticising China’s regulators for their increasingly dire warnings concerning his company’s financial arm, Ant Group.

Ant Group’s Alipay platform is ubiquitous in China, used to buy everything from meals to ride-hailing, groceries and travel tickets.

Slow-footed regulatory oversight also allowed Ant to expand into loans, wealth management, even insurance. Tencent’s fintech profile also has risen.

Consequently, they have become “overly powerful actors capable of pushing regulatory boundaries without regard for systemic risks,” Eurasia Group consultancy said in a research note.

These ambitions have collided with Beijing’s years-long campaign to purge its chaotic financial system of a dangerous debt build-up.

– Size matters – Chinese debt spiralled to 335 percent of gross domestic product by the end of 2020, according to the Institute of International Finance. Previous lower levels had already prompted International Monetary Fund concern.

The official response to Ma’s unusual outburst has been uncompromising: Ant’s record-breaking $35 billion Hong Kong-Shanghai IPO was abruptly suspended, Ma disappeared from public view for weeks, and regulatory screws have been tightened.

China is expected to force Ant and Tencent to begin running their lending operations like banks, with resulting higher scrutiny and financial liability — things the fintech leaders had largely avoided.

“They’ll have to meet capital requirements and set up financial holding companies. They can’t escape it,” said Ke Yan, lead analyst at DZT Research.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Alibaba was also being pushed to shed wide-ranging media assets, including a potential sale of Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post.

The tumult has sliced billions off Chinese tech firms’ share values.

In China’s crackdown, size matters.

While just over 20 percent of US retail spending takes place online, China is forecast to surpass 50 percent this year. Major Chinese platforms boast hundreds of millions of users, amplifying concerns about industry concentration and data privacy.

Ma’s unusual outburst was seen by many as a direct Big Tech challenge to Communist Party authority and influence.

But Ke says: “I don’t think (the crackdown) was triggered by Jack Ma. It’s been planned for a long time.”

Unease over tech’s growing influence is not unique to China.

“Most major governments globally are focussed on this issue in a way they weren’t two years ago. Everyone seems to think that Big Tech has gotten too powerful,” Towson said.

– ‘Very China approach’ – Such crackdowns are not unusual in China.

Its economy has transformed so rapidly in recent decades that regulators often play catch-up, eventually making headlines with clampdowns that analysts say are often necessary — though belated — attempts to address problems that appear.

“It’s a very ‘China’ approach: ‘Let it run to not stifle innovation, and we’ll step in a bit later,'” said Towson, adding that China is “rightfully concerned” over how fast fintech has grown.

Many Chinese web-users say the crackdown should have come sooner. Consumers increasingly express privacy concerns as use of facial recognition and other advanced technologies expand in China.

More measures could be coming. President Xi Jinping last week called for tightened oversight to prevent online monopolies and financial chaos.

This could “break down the walled gardens built by Alibaba and Tencent,” Eurasia Group said, leading to a “more level playing field for smaller companies and present better choices for consumers.”

Ant’s eventual IPO is expected to be severely trimmed down, but China’s moves are “unlikely (to) materially change the competitive landscape and potential growth” in such a crucial sector, investment group CLSA said in a research report.

“Regulatory risks are overstated,” it added.

It may take time for the “dust to settle”, said Ke, but he adds: “there is still huge growth behind these companies.”



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY