资源描述
REGULATING ALTERNATIVE FINANCE: RESULTS FROM A GLOBAL REGULATOR SURVEY with the support ofThe World Bank Group Global Knowledge and Research Hub in Malaysia focuses on sharing Malaysias people-centered development expertise and creating new innovative policy research on local, regional and global issues. It is centered on support for Malaysias vision to join the ranks of high-income economies by 2020 through inclusive and sustainable growth, and to share its lessons with developing countries. The Hub also carries out cuttingedge development policy research in partnership with local and international research institutions worldbank/en/country/malaysia/brief/ global-knowledge-and-research-hub This report is jointly produced by the World Bank and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School. This study is kindly supported by the World Bank Group Knowledge fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrightsworldbank. JEL Classification Codes: F33; G00; G01; G15; G21; G23; G31 Keywords: Alternative Finance, FinTech, Financial Regulation, Regulatory Innovation, Crowdfunding, Peer-to-Peer Lending, Initial Coin Offerings, Sandbox, RegTech.TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . 5 Research Team . 7 Executive Summary . 8 1. Introduction and research motivation . 13 2. Survey methodology and sample . 21 2.1 Survey administration and fieldwork . 21 2.2 Survey Data Sample . 22 3. Regulatory approaches to alternative finance . 28 3.1 Current regulatory approaches to alternative finance . 28 3.2 Patterns in regulatory change . 33 4. Regulatory frameworks in detail . 43 4.1 Alternative finance - the permitted activities and requirements 43 4.2 Sector-by-sector analysis of alternative finance regulation . 43 4.2.1 P2P/marketplace lending . 43 4.2.2 Equity Crowdfunding (ECF) . 48 4.2.3 Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) . 50 4.3 Implications of regulatory choices: two discussions . 54 5. The supervision of alternative finance . 58 5.1 The perceived risks of alternative finance .58 5.2 The supervisory resources dedicated to alternative finance .60 5.2.1 Human Resources . 60 5.2.2 Trends in supervisory resource investment . 61 5.3 The impediments to effective supervision and regulation of alternative finance . 63 6. Regulatory Innovation . 66 6.1 Regulatory innovation initiatives - their activity .66 6.2 RegTech and SupTech in focus . 68 6.3 Regulatory innovation initiatives - their perceived impact . 70 7. The future of the regulation of alternative finance 74 Annexes . 80Foreword 5 Foreword Access to finance for small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) is at the top of the policy agenda in most countries noting their significant contribution to employment creation, innovation and inclusive economic growth. The current gap is enormous between the demand for finance by SMEs and existing matching supply; with IFC estimates at approximately $5 trillion worldwide. Consumers, especially in emerging markets, have also traditionally lacked the financial services they need. Whether firms or individuals, both share some common challenges including high transaction costs, information inconsistencies and distance between financial providers and clients; making it hard to serve many markets. Fortunately, over the past few years, we have seen incredible progress in providing expanded access to formal financial services. According to Global Findex data, approximately 1.2 billion new consumers gained access to formal financial services between 2011 and 2017. Fintech solutions, such as those introduced by mobile money providers, have been behind these gains. Not only have they increased financial inclusion, they have also increased competition, driving prices lower and improving the quality of services offered. This momentum -driving access to transaction accounts and electronic payments- is crucial for financial inclusion, but firms and individuals also need access to credit, insurance, long-term savings and pension products and investment capital. This report, Regulating Alternative Finance: Results from a global regulator survey focuses on peer-to-peer lending, equity crowdfunding and initial coin offerings, which constitute a rapidly growing segment of fintech for meeting credit, savings and investment needs. Technology platforms increase the efficiency of transactions, frequently making use of alternative data for customers who lack formal credit histories. They also provide new investment opportunities for consumers and investors, expand access to credit, and promote competition in many developed and developing markets. At the same time, there is justifiable concern about risks, including those related to integrity, sustainability of operations and consumer protections. Survey findings informing this report are based on responses from regulators in more than one hundred and ten jurisdictions across the world. The survey identified expanded access to finance for firms and individuals and strengthened competition as primary triggers for advancing the development of alternative finance. When asked about obstacles they faced in regulating alternative finance, regulators emphasized limited technical expertise, limited funding and resources, difficulties in coordinating multiple supervisory bodies, and often a lack of reliable empirical data. Data on global trends as well as on the specific policy approach taken by authorities in other jurisdictions, is a critical input to the alternative finance agenda. When reviewing alternative finance regulation, 90% of regulators included in the survey mentioned benchmarking and lessons learned from other jurisdictions as key triggers prompting changes in regulation more frequently than any other trigger. Malaysia is recognized among the top jurisdictions for benchmarking regulations for alternative finance at a global level. Malaysia issued the first regulations for equity crowdfunding in the ASEAN region and its alternative finance industry has steadily grown, providing opportunity for small businesses who might, otherwise, have lacked funding. Malaysias leadership in alternative finance is best expressed in its support of the research backing this report, which was co-funded by the World Bank Global Research and Knowledge Hub. The World Bank and Securities Commission Malaysia partnership also included the Cambridge Centre for Regulating Alternative Finance Results from a Global Regulator Survey 6 Alternative Finance which implemented the survey and jointly produced the report. Last, but not least, we relied on the support from the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) to share the survey amongst its members. We hope that the valuable insights contained in this report will encourage further knowledge sharing and peer learning amongst the global community of financial sector regulators. Alfonso Garcia Mora Global Director Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation Global Practice The World Bank Group Chin Wei Min Executive Director Digital Strategy and Innovation Securities Commission MalaysiaResearch Team 7 Research Team The joint World Bank and Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance research team consists of the following individuals: Philip Rowan, Margaret Miller, Emmanuel Schizas, Bryan Zheng Zhang, Ana Carvajal, Apolline Blandin, Kieran Garvey, Tania Ziegler, Raghu Rau, Douglas Randall, Alicia Hu, Zain Umer, Katherine Cloud, Leyla Mammadova, Jaesik Kim and Nikos Yerolemou. Acknowledgements The Research Team would like to thank the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) for distributing the survey to their members and engaging in follow-up activities with them. We also offer our most sincere thanks to the regulators who responded to the survey. A full list of the countries surveyed and the regulatory bodies which responded to the questionnaire is presented in Annex 1. For their generous support, we would like to thank the World Banks Global Knowledge and Research Hub in Malaysia for financial support. We are also grateful to the Securities Commission Malaysia for being a valuable technical partner led by Mr. Chin Wei Min, Executive Director, Digital Strategy and Innovation and technical support from Ms. Azrina Azmel, Deputy General Manager, Digital Strategy and Innovation of SC Malaysia for this work. From the World Bank side, we are thankful to the internal reviewers Mahesh Uttamchandani, Matthew Saal, Erik Feyen, Richard Mark Davis, Nagavalli Annamala, Irina Astrakhan, Sharmista Appaya, Mara K. Warwick, Souleymane Coulibaly and Richard Record for their insightful comments and feedback. We also would like to thank Dina Elnaggar, Wei Zhang and Joshua Chee Yan Foong for their kind support for the report launch and publication. From the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance side, we are grateful to Robert Wardrop for his guidance and support for this study, Louise Smith for designing the report, Nicola Adams for proofreading, Charles Goldsmith for press support and Philippa Coney for her help with the online distribution.Regulating Alternative Finance Results from a Global Regulator Survey 8 Executive Summary Regulating Alternative Finance Results from a Global Regulator Survey is a report that details the key findings from a global regulatory survey that was jointly conducted by the World Bank and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School. This study intends to understand the global regulatory landscape for alternative finance through the collation of empirical data from regulators, including securities regulators, capital markets authorities and central banks. Focusing on peer-to- peer/marketplace lending (P2P), equity crowdfunding (ECF) and initial coin offerings (ICOs), 1the survey aims to comprehensively and comparatively analyze how regulators from both developing and developed economies are regulating and supervising these online alternative finance activities. Regulators from 111 jurisdictions around the world participated in the survey with 40% of the respondents from high-income jurisdictions and 30% of the respondents from lower middle or low income jurisdictions. The key findings from the global regulator survey are as follows: The potential of alternative finance speaks to a new set of regulatory objectives Policymakers globally are keen to explore the promise of alternative finance. A clear majority are optimistic about its potential to improve MSMEs and consumers access to finance (79% and 65% respectively) and stimulate competition in financial services (68%). Such expectations chime with regulators emerging priorities, as many now have statutory objectives to support financial inclusion, economic policies or competition. Alternative finance is still typically unregulated but bespoke regulation is catching on Despite a boom in alternative finance regulation since 2015, the relevant activities are still not formally regulated in most jurisdictions only 22% of jurisdictions formally regulate P2P lending, as opposed to 39% for ECF and 22% in the case of ICOs. Where these activities are regulated, some jurisdictions apply to them pre-existing regulatory frameworks (e.g for securities). More often, they are subject to bespoke regulatory frameworks, particularly in the case of P2P lending (12% of jurisdictions) and ECF (22% of jurisdictions). These might be brand new or adapted from those of other jurisdictions. While regulation is not the norm today, by mid-2021 most jurisdictions will be regulating ECF and more than a third intend to regulate P2P lending and ICOs; bespoke frameworks will likely become even more common. Regulatory change, however, is not limited to unregulated sectors becoming regulated; it also includes revisions of pre-existing frameworks, often in favour of bespoke ones. In the case of ECF, taking all of these types of change into account means that half of all jurisdictions are likely to see changes to their legal or regulatory frameworks over the next two years. Benchmarking drives global regulatory change Regulatory benchmarking is used by more than 90% of regulators when reviewing alternative finance regulation, and lessons learned from other jurisdictions have prompted changes in regulation more frequently than any other trigger (56% to 66% of regulators, across the three activities). Historical ties, legal traditions and language certainly influence who learns from 1 With regards to ICOs, applicable regulations depend on the legal nature of the underlying token. To date, several jurisdictions have adopted a token classification dividing cryptoassets into three broad categories, i.e. payment tokens, utility tokens, and security tokens. The study did not incorporate a classification, and therefore encompasses all types of ICOs, unless explicitly stated otherwise. For the inaugural CCAF review of the regulation of cryptoassets, see Blandin et al (2019) Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study, April 2019: jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/ cryptoasset-regulation/
展开阅读全文