Don’t choke off fintech innovation with excessive capital requirements | American Banker

We know by now that innovation drives economic growth. The internet boom of the 1990s stands as a testament to this, with its roots in technological prowess and a relatively deregulated environment. 

The financial sector is no different and also thrives when given space needed to innovate. Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, recently advocated for a proposal aimed at bolstering banking regulation. The idea of demanding higher capital holdings from banks seems prudent — a safety net for the financial ecosystem — but the potential ripple effects warrant closer examination.

A uniform regulatory approach might impede the growth of burgeoning fintechs and challenge midsize banks. Rules should differentiate between the risk profiles of giants like JPMorgan and agile fintech startups to ensure they don’t curtail innovation. 

Neobanks and other fintech startups, reliant on partnerships with traditional banks for infrastructure and regulatory cover, could face increased costs from over-regulation. Large institutions, burdened by the weight of regulation, often pass on additional vetting and compliance costs to their fintech partners. For instance, when a major bank imposes stringent due diligence processes for anti-money-laundering measures, it’s often the fintech, with its leaner structure and tighter margins, that feels the pinch. 

Many fintechs have demonstrated a capacity to offer better terms and better product experiences than traditional banks: Consider the rise of fintech platforms offering zero-fee transactions, or peer-to-peer lending sites that provide more flexible terms than traditional banks. These companies, by leveraging technology, are often able to reduce overheads and pass on the savings directly to the consumer or business. 

The Federal Reserve is leading the push for broader, more standardized risk-capital rules, yet some of its board members, other regulators and industry groups are uncomfortable with the proposal.

This agility and customer-centric approach underscores the necessity of fintechs in creating a more dynamic financial ecosystem. Their importance is further amplified when we recognize the value they bring in bridging gaps that larger banks, with their legacy systems and one-size-fits-all offerings, often can’t address.

Historical events, like the 2008 financial crisis, underscore the pitfalls of misjudged regulations. Standardizing risk measures can promote herd behavior, potentially leading to asset bubbles or liquidity issues. 

Barr’s viewpoint on capital as a catch-all solution overlooks banking’s intricate vulnerabilities. Recent failures, such as Silicon Valley Bank, highlight that capital isn’t the only protective measure. Regulators must be careful not to give undue advantage to industry giants at the expense of smaller upstarts. 

Striking a balance between oversight and growth is essential. The banking system benefits from scrutiny to avoid previous mistakes, but regulations should cater to the unique challenges of different banking entities. Fintechs should not be stifled by over-regulation. 

The U.S. is at a pivotal juncture. The decisions made today concerning regulations will shape our financial future. We must adopt a regulatory framework that ensures stability while fostering innovation.