Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.
Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.
Please submit appropriate comments. Inappropriate comments include content that is abusive, harassing, or threatening; obscene, vulgar, or profane; an attack of a personal nature; or overtly political.
In addition, no off-topic remarks or spam is permitted.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
December 3, 2018
Building Blocks for the Sandbox
I just returned from a leave of absence to welcome my third child to this world. As I catch up on payments news, one theme emerging is the large number of state and federal regulatory bodies launching their own fintech sandboxes. Typically, these testing grounds allow businesses to experiment with various "building blocks" while they innovate. Some businesses are even allowed regulatory relief as they work out the kinks. As I've researched, I've found myself daydreaming about how my new little human also needs to work with the right building blocks, or core principles, to ensure he develops properly and "plays nice" in the sandbox.
But—back to work. What guidance do fintechs have available to them to grow and prosper?.
On July 31 of this year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released a report suggesting regulatory reform to promote financial technology and innovation among both traditional financial institutions and nonbanks. The report in its entirety is worth a review, but I'll highlight some of it here.
The blueprint for a unified regulatory sandbox is still up for discussion, but the Treasury suggests a hierarchical structure, either overseen by a single regulator or by an entirely new regulator. The Treasury suggests that Congress will likely have to assist by passing legislation with the necessary preemptions to grant authority to the newly created agency or a newly named authoritative agency.
The report outlines these core principles of a unified regulatory sandbox:
- Promote the adoption and growth of innovation and technological transformation in financial services.
- Provide equal access to companies in various stages of the business lifecycle (e.g., startups and incumbents). [The regulator should define when a business could or should participate.]
- Delineate clear and public processes and procedures, including a process by which firms enter and exit.
- Provide targeted relief across multiple regulatory frameworks.
- Offer the ability to achieve international regulatory cooperation or appropriate deference where applicable.
- Maintain financial integrity, consumer protections, and investor protections commensurate with the scope of the project, not be based on the organization type (whether it's a bank or nonbank).
- Increase the timeliness of regulator feedback offered throughout the product or service development lifecycle. [Slow regulator feedback is typically a deterrent for start-up participation.]
Clearly, the overarching intent of these principles is to help align guidance, standards, and regulation to meet the needs of a diverse group of participants. Should entities offering the same financial services be regulated similarly? More importantly, is such a mission readily achievable?
People have long recognized the fragmentation of the U.S. financial regulatory system. The number of agencies at the federal and state levels with a hand in financial services oversight creates inconsistencies and overlaps of powers. Fintech innovations even sometimes invite attention from regulators outside of the financial umbrella, regulators like the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission.
In the domain of financial services are kingdoms of industry. Take the payments kingdom, for example. Payments are interstate, global, and multi-schemed (each scheme with its own rules framework). And let's be honest, in the big picture of financial services innovations and in the minds of fintechs, payments are an afterthought, and they aren't front and center in business plans. Consumers want products or services; payments connect the dots. (In fact, the concept of invisible payments is only growing stronger.)
What is more, a fintech, even though it may have a payments component in its technology, might not identify itself as a fintech. And a business that doesn't see itself as a fintech is not going to get in line for a unified financial services regulator sandbox (though it might want to play in a payments regulator sandbox).
When regulatory restructuring takes place, I hope it will build a dedicated infrastructure to nurture the payments piece of fintech, so that all can play nice in the payments sandbox. (Insert crying baby.)
By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
September 10, 2018
The Case of the Disappearing ATM
The longtime distribution goal of a major soft drink company is to have their product "within an arm's reach of desire." This goal might also be applied to ATMs—the United States has one of the highest concentration of ATMs per adult. In a recent post, I highlighted some of the findings from an ATM locational study conducted by a team of economics professors from the University of North Florida. Among their findings, for example, was that of the approximately 470,000 ATMs and cash dispensers in the United States, about 59 percent have been placed and are operated by independent entrepreneurs. Further, these independently owned ATMs "tend to be located in areas with less population, lower population density, lower median and average income (household and disposable), lower labor force participation rate, less college-educated population, higher unemployment rate, and lower home values."
This finding directly relates to the issue of financial inclusion, an issue that is a concern of the Federal Reserve's. A 2016 study by Accenture pointed "to the ATM as one of the most important channels, which can be leveraged for the provision of basic financial services to the underserved." I think most would agree that the majority of the unbanked and underbanked population is likely to reside in the demographic areas described above. One could conclude that the independent ATM operators are fulfilling a demand of people in these areas for access to cash, their primary method of payment.
Unfortunately for these communities, a number of independent operators are having to shut down and remove their ATMs because their banking relationships are being terminated. These closures started in late 2014, but a larger wave of account closures has been occurring over the last several months. In many cases, the operators are given no reason for the sudden termination. Some operators believe their settlement bank views them as a high-risk business related to money laundering, since the primary product of the ATM is cash. Financial institutions may incorrectly group these operators with money service businesses (MSB), even though state regulators do not consider them to be MSBs. Earlier this year, the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing over concerns that this de-risking could be blocking consumers' (and small businesses') access to financial products and services. You can watch the hearing on video (the hearing actually begins at 16:40).
While a financial institution should certainly monitor its customer accounts to ensure compliance with its risk tolerance and compliance policies, we have to ask if the independent ATM operators are being painted with a risk brush that is too broad. The reality is that it is extremely difficult for an ATM operator to funnel "dirty money" through an ATM. First, to gain access to the various ATM networks, the operator has to be sponsored by a financial institution (FI). In the sponsorship process, the FI rigorously reviews the operator's financial stability and other business operations as well as compliance with BSA/AML because the FI sponsor is ultimately responsible for any network violations. Second, the networks handling the transaction are completely independent from the ATM owners. They produce financial reports that show the amount of funds that an ATM dispenses in any given period and generate the settlement transactions. These networks maintain controls that clearly document the funds flowing through the ATM, and a review of the settlement account activity would quickly identify any suspicious activity.
The industry groups representing the independent ATM operators appear to have gained a sympathetic ear from legislators and, to some degree, regulators. But the sympathy hasn't extended to those financial institutions that are accelerating account closures in some areas. We will continue to monitor this issue and report any major developments. Please let us know your thoughts.
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
June 4, 2018
The GDPR's Impact on U.S. Consumers
If your email inbox is like mine, it's recently been flooded with messages from companies you’ve done online business with about changes in their terms and conditions, particularly regarding privacy. What has prompted this wave of notices is the May 25 implementation of Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Approved by the European Parliament in April 2016 after considerable debate, the regulation standardizes data privacy regulations across Europe for the protection of EU citizens.
The regulation applies to both data "controllers" and data "processors." A data controller is the organization that owns the data, while the data processor is an outside company that helps to manage or process that data. The focus of the GDPR requirements is on controllers and processors directly conducting business in the 28 countries that make up the European Union (EU). But the GDPR has the potential to affect businesses based in any country, including the United States, that collect or process the personal data of any EU citizen. Penalties for noncompliance can be quite severe. For that reason, many companies are choosing to err on the side of caution and sending to all their customers notices of changes to their privacy disclosure terms and conditions. Some companies have even gone so far as to provide the privacy protections contained in the GDPR to all their customers, EU citizens or not.
The GDPR has a number of major consumer protections:
- Individuals can request that controllers erase all information collected on them that is not required for transaction processing. They can also ask the controller to stop companies from distributing that data any further and, with some exceptions, have third parties stop processing the data. (This provision is known as "data erasure" or the "right to be forgotten.")
- Companies must design information technology systems to include privacy protection features. In addition, they must have a robust notification system in place for when breaches occur. After a breach, the data processor must notify the data controller "without undue delay." When the breach threatens "risk for the rights and freedoms of individuals," the data controller must notify the supervisory authority within 72 hours of discovery of the breach. Data controllers must also notify "without undue delay" the individuals whose information has been affected.
- Individuals can request to be informed if the companies are obtaining their personal data and, if so, how they will use that data. Individual also have the right to obtain without charge electronic copies of collected data, and they may send that data to another company if they choose.
In addition, the GDPR requires large processing companies, as well as public authorities and other specified businesses, to designate a data protection officer to oversee the companies' compliance with the GDPR.
There have been numerous efforts in the United States to pass uniform privacy legislation, with little or no change. My colleague Doug King authored a post back in May 2015 about three cybersecurity bills under consideration that included privacy rights. Three years later, for each bill, either action has been suspended or it's still in committee. It will be interesting to see, as the influence of the GDPR spreads globally, whether there will be any additional efforts to pass similar legislation in the United States. What do you think?
And by the way, fraudsters are always looking for opportunities to install malware on your phones and other devices. We've heard reports of the criminal element using "update notice" emails. The messages, which appear to be legitimate, want the unsuspecting recipient to click on a link or open an attachment containing malware or a virus. So be careful!
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
December 4, 2017
What Will the Fintech Regulatory Environment Look Like in 2018?
As we prepare to put a bow on 2017 and begin to look forward to 2018, I can’t help but observe that fintech was one of the bigger topics in the banking and payments communities this year. (Be sure to sign up for our December 14 Talk About Payments webinar to see if fintech made our top 10 newsworthy list for 2017.) Many industry observers would likely agree that it will continue to garner a lot of attention in the upcoming year, as financial institutions (FI) will continue to partner with fintech companies to deliver client-friendly solutions.
No doubt, fintech solutions are making our daily lives easier, whether they are helping us deposit a check with our mobile phones or activating fund transfers with a voice command in a mobile banking application. But at what cost to consumers? To date, the direct costs, such as fees, have been minimal. However, are there hidden costs such as the loss of data privacy that could potentially have negative consequences for not only consumers but also FIs? And what, from a regulatory perspective, is being done to mitigate these potential negative consequences?
Early in the year, there was a splash in the regulatory environment for fintechs. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) began offering limited-purpose bank charters to fintech companies. This charter became the subject of heated debates and discussions—and even lawsuits, by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. To date, the OCC has not formally begun accepting applications for this charter.
So where will the fintech regulatory environment take us in 2018?
Will it continue to be up to the FIs to perform due diligence on fintech companies, much as they do for third-party service providers? Will regulatory agencies offer FIs additional guidance or due diligence frameworks for fintechs, over and above what they do for traditional third-party service providers? Will one of the regulatory agencies decide that the role of fintech companies in financial services is becoming so important that the companies should be subject to examinations like financial institutions get? Finally, will U.S. regulatory agencies create sandboxes to allow fintechs and FIs to launch products on a limited scale, such as has taken place in the United Kingdom and Australia?
The Risk Forum will continue to closely monitor the fintech industry in 2018. We would enjoy hearing from our readers about how they see the regulatory environment for fintechs evolving.
By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
Take On Payments Search
- account takeovers
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- credit cards
- crossborder wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- financial technology
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator MNO
- money services business MSB
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments studies/research
- payments systems
- Payment Services Directive
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- supervision and regulation
- thirdparty service provider
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices UDAP
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud