By Louise Courtman at Crossbridge
Throughout 2011 and 2012, the FSA has introduced a number of enhancements to the UK client assets regime, from the Client Money and Asset Return (CMAR) and the creation of the CF10a (CASS Operational Oversight Function), to increased requirements for auditors and the CASS Resolution Pack.How far-reaching and effective have these changes been and what lies ahead in 2013 for CASS compliance? Following the demise of MF Global, the protracted return of clients’ assets to them in the UK, compared to the speed of return experienced in the US, suggests a long road to improving the regime still lies ahead.
Back to basics
Whilst client asset issues have moved higher up the agenda of firms’ senior management, with investment in systems and staff to make firms’ control environments more robust, the FSA is clear in its view, it is still seeing firms getting the basics wrong; Blackrock’s fine last year for failure to have valid trust letters in place is just one example. The regulator has re-affirmed its commitment to the level of increased scrutiny and supervision the industry has witnessed it adopt since early 2009 and sent a strong message that there is a significant amount of work to be done for firms to embed the foundations of basic compliance.
In the autumn of 2012, the FSA consulted on a number of proposed changes to the regulations. The primary objectives of the FSA’s Consultation are threefold: to increase the speed of return of client assets following a firm’s failure, increase the proportion of assets that are returned and reduce the market impact of the failure of firms holding client assets.The introduction of multiple client money sub-pools is intended to fulfil these goals, but will the most radical change proposed to the regime in twenty years, hit the mark?
Speed versus accuracy
In line with the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), certain changes must be made to the CASS regulations, to accommodate the different segregation models central clearing counter parties (CCPs) must now offer to clients and to facilitate the transfer, ‘porting’, of clients’ funds to a back-up clearing member, in the event of one clearing member’s default. In part to fully address these requirements and also prompted by the greater protection that clients opting for an individual segregation model can be afforded, the FSA is considering the possibility of introducing multiple client money sub-pools and providing that level of increased protection to a broader range of clients.
Under the proposals, investment firms will have the option of establishing legally and operationally separate sub-pools of client money that may be split along client type or business line (retail versus non-retail, margined versus non-margined business). Whereas the current client assets regime prioritises accuracy over speed, the ability to split out riskier types of business would likely render it easier to resolve and pay out individual claims more quickly. The client money return to some clients should also be maximised, as any client money shortfall would be restricted to beneficiaries of that sub-pool.
It is important, however, not to overlook the degree of operational complexity involved in managing multiple sub-pools and the potential increase in operational errors that may result. Each client money sub-pool would require its own client money bank and transaction accounts, with separate client money reconciliations and segregation to be performed for each pool.Whilst these risks can be mitigated with appropriate operational controls, the cost of set up and ongoing maintenance of the sub-pools is also estimated to be significant. Costs would include record-keeping requirements(client documentation, client on boarding, agent network management, account set up, client reporting and additional staff required to carry out these processes)updates to policies, procedures, systems and controls, legal requirements, staff training, internal and external audit and project management costs. Industry respondents to the FSA’s consultation estimated the one off costs of establishing a first sub-pool to be in the region of £30,000-£5,500,000 and ongoing maintenance costs to be £60,000 to £300,000. One off costs for establishing subsequent pools are estimated to range from £0 to £1,400,000 and ongoing costs from £7,000-£230,000.
Whilst it appears that the introduction of multiple pools would result in a swifter return of funds, without too significant a detriment to accuracy, as well as bringing flexibility to the regime,can the change be extensive enough, given the legislative framework on which the UK regime is based?
Too radical or not radical enough?
The UK client assets regime is based on UK insolvency and company legislation. Not all of the criticism levied at the UK system, in the wake of MF Global, is entirely well informed, as there are important structural differences between the US and UK regimes that enable a more rapid return of assets in the U.S. Firstly, the US benefits from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), an industry funded insurance scheme established for clients of failed brokerage firms, covering them up to $500,000 each. Secondly and most significantly, US insolvency practitioners are not exposed to the same personal liabilities and litigation fears as UK practitioners.
Without a fundamental change to the legislative framework, the impact of enhancements to the regulations, such as multiple pools, can only ever go so far. There is also the question of how an equivalent UK insurance scheme would be funded and how feasible it would be to overhaul the legislative framework. Multiple pools are not the only proposal on the table from the FSA, however, so what are the other options to improve the regime?
Is the alternative better?
It has long been hinted at that the FSA is considering revoking the ‘alternative approach’ and certainly the Lehman Supreme Court ruling of February last year, which determined that the statutory trust over client money arises on receipt of the funds from a client, rather than at the moment of their segregation, brought in to question the value of its existence.
Under the alternative approach, whereby banks are able to receive funds in to their house account and segregate client money based on the close of business balance the previous day, there is an element of exposure that exists for money that is due to be segregated, but has not yet been. There is no guarantee, however, if the ‘normal approach’ were to be adopted across the board, that the calculation of funds to be segregated would be more accurate, given the complex multi-product, multi-currency operating environment of banks. Is it worth the FSA abolishing the alternative approach and creating serious practical difficulties for complex investment firms; difficulties the alternative approach was originally designed to mitigate?
If the alternative approach were to be retained, there are other possibilities – firms could be obliged to keep a balance in any account(s) used under the approach that is at least equal to the amount of client money to be segregated,or to hold a buffer in accounts to cover the cost of any potential losses incurred through the firm’s failings. Firms could even seek private sector mutual insurance to cover potential losses. It remains to be seen if the alternative approach will survive the current review of the regulations that is underway, though the same can also be said for the ‘banking exemption’.
Do not bank on it
There is a widely held view across the industry that the FSA is also considering revoking the ‘banking exemption’. The banking exemption permits licensed deposit taking institutions to hold funds as deposits, instead of under the client money rules. It is easy to make the assumption that all clients are seeking CASS protection and that this is the best possible form of protection for all clients, but is this actually something of a misnomer?
Under the CASS rules, client money must be diversified across a number of agent banks, so that a maximum of 20% of a firm’s client money can be held intra-group or with group related entities. It is rare that the identity of agent banks with which funds are held is disclosed to clients and what the potential credit exposure therefore is. Conversely, under the banking exemption, clients knowingly place their funds with an institution, the credit risk of which they are aware. Whilst the Financial Services Compensation Scheme only covers clients up to a certain threshold for deposits, if the banking exemption were to be removed, would that limit the options open to clients for protection of their funds?
If changes such as the removal of the alternative approach or the banking exemption were to be introduced, the path to implementation for investment firms currently operating these would be long, complicated and costly and furthermore, restricted by the UK legislative framework, alone may not fulfil the FSA’s objectives for CASS compliance. Is it actually a different type of client assets regime that is in fact needed?
Time for regime change?
It is important to remember the speed of return of assets to clients fundamentally depends on the complexity of issues at the time of a firm’s failure. The current CASS rules give primary focus to protection in the event of insolvency. Should the industry instead be working towards a regime that places greater emphasis on compliance when firms are solvent entities?
With the current market share in the UK at over £100 billion for client money and £9.7 trillion for client assets, and with the potential for that share to grow further still with the segregation models CCPs are now obliged to offer under EMIR, client asset protection will remain central to the FSA’s agenda.
Changes have been and are still being made to move towards an improved regime, but the fundamental overhaul that is required is not possible without the co-operation of government and the industry. Whether there will be a brave new regime is not yet clear, but the path ahead is definitely not a short one and the beginning of the end of a new era of CASS compliance is certainly not around the corner quite yet.
Regulating innovation: the biggest challenge in payments
By Fady Abdel-Nour, Global Head of M&A and Investments, PayU
Over the course of the last six months, the payments industry has been lauded as one of the most impressive in its agility responding to Covid-19. Consumers and merchants have flocked online and safety has been a significant driver of the move to digital as entire countries discourage the use of cash – but what of financial and data security?
As digital payments adoption accelerates, there’s no time to waste. The pressure is on for governments and regulators to not only ensure security keeps pace with new consumer demand, but to look ahead and clear the road for future innovation.
Acceleration in digital payments
At PayU, we operate in 20 markets across the globe. Since the start of the pandemic, every single one of these markets has seen a seismic shift in consumer habits. In Poland, for example, the number of new onboarded e-shops was three times higher between March and May than in previous months. And in Colombia, e-commerce activity was 282% higher than pre-lockdown levels. Some merchants across our markets saw year-on-year revenue growth of a staggering 500-1000% during April and May.
New merchants are seeing this potential, moving online to increase their customer base and keep economies ticking. But with great innovation comes corresponding regulations. How can regulators keep up?
Innovation vs. regulation: an incompatible duo?
New ideas and technologies are undeniably critical to ensure services keep up with consumer behaviour. However, for this to happen safely, there needs to be collaboration between our industry’s innovators and regulators. Progress requires us to challenge and expand existing boundaries, holding our shared goal in mind.
Important as this concept is, it is by no means revolutionary. The widely pedalled narrative that innovators and regulators are at loggerheads is, quite frankly, outdated. It is not true that innovation in financial services has to disrupt existing systems and infrastructure. We have already seen countless examples of regulators working with the fintech ecosystem to enable and support innovation.
Across the emerging markets that PayU operates in, innovation initiatives are in place to educate entrepreneurs on the regulatory environment in which they operate. In Brazil, the central bank has established a sandbox, the Laboratory of Financial and Technological Innovation, to help fintech startups work more closely with regulators and government and accelerate the development of their ideas. The aim is to create a more efficient financial system, increase financial inclusion and reduce the cost of credit through better regulation. As the country rolls out Open Banking, acknowledging fintech’s potential to drive better socio-economic inclusion is incredibly encouraging.
It would be remiss of me not to mention The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) here. To date, it has excelled in driving positive change by ensuring new players and services can operate within regulatory constraints. If they are unable to do so, the MAS reviews its framework and, where appropriate, adjusts it to safely progress innovation rather than stifle it. In 2019, for example, it issued five new digital bank licenses. Later in the year, it launched the Sandbox Express to help create a faster option for testing innovative financial services in the market.
The open-minded and collaborative approach of these regulatory models marks the future of financial regulation to me. The world is changing quickly and the parameters that keep us secure have to adapt and morph more than ever before. The job is not simple, but it can boost innovation and build a safe and sustainable financial environment, where pioneers are empowered to set the pace for change.
Consumer demand is only one side of the (digital) coin
The other trend creating complexity for regulators is the move towards embedded finance and Big Tech’s involvement in this.
Broadly, embedded finance means that fintech services are expanding beyond the walls of banks and becoming part of other business models rather than a standalone entity. This is a challenge in itself, as regulators will need to be vigilant to ensure that payments, credit and other financial services remain secure and customers are protected.
Across Europe, the US, Latin America, Asia and Africa, governments have also been grappling with how to regulate Big Tech. Facebook, for example, has launched ‘Facebook Financial’ to pursue opportunities in digital payments and e-commerce. Similarly, regulators in Brazil and India have been trying to navigate WhatsApp’s attempts to establish its new payments feature in both markets. These features were suspended by Brazil’s central bank and have been in testing in India for over two years.
The good news is that regulators are paying attention. The pushback we’re seeing is not simply aversion to change, but industry experts exploring how these developments can keep consumer needs at the heart and enhance the current payment ecosystem. New business models and new players are important to keeping us all at the top of our game.
Regulating a changing financial ecosystem
We’re in a truly remarkable age, where the role of regulation is being tested again and again. I believe that regulators have a more vital role to play than ever. Covid-19 has been a powerful catalyst in the financial sector and there is some positive change to be harnessed from the disruption.
If navigated shrewdly, regulators will succeed in capitalising on new trends to retain their core purpose: to ensure the safety and security of the customer and support positive change. The whole industry will need to work together closely to build a regulatory framework that is fertile for innovation and allows us to realise the enormous potential of payments in this new decade. So, what are we waiting for?
How the financial sector can keep newly acquired customers returning time and time again
By Dicken Doe from Foolproof, a Zensar company
Covid-19 has changed the financial lives of millions; what worked for people and their bank six months ago might not work today. For some people savings have depleted and pensions withdrawn early. While mortgage holidays have increased the time required to pay back loans and emergency funds in the advent of job losses.
When combined with the fact that Covid-19 has rapidly sped up online migration, providers need to deeply question the design of their financial experiences. According to a recent survey from Lightico: “63% of US citizens said they were more inclined to try a new digital app for banking than they were before the pandemic. Also, 82% said they were concerned about paying a visit to their local banks.”
To be successful, both existing and new experiences must be assessed by using data and human insight to iteratively design and test solutions.
The swift response of many financial institutions to the crisis has created a number of changes to services and customer support functions. Things which have taken months of negotiation in the past have been made possible in days. However, speed does not always equal quality. Key considerations that need to be accounted for – to keep existing and newly acquired customers returning – remain. This can broadly be described under the auspice of consistent experiences that meet emerging customer needs.
Top tips to keep newly acquired financial services customers returning
Getting ahead starts with the ‘why’ customers are performing an action and ‘what’ they need. With this in mind, here are my top five tips for the financial sector on how to keep new customers coming back again and again.
Understand new and emerging needs:
People have been forced online in all-new circumstances. To respond appropriately, providers need to look at quantitative data and have a regular qualitative dialogue with new and existing online customers. This will help them spot emerging needs and behaviours which form themes and patterns in online browsing. To enable this, financial service providers must move from being reactive to proactive. This will help them to keep pace with the changes people themselves are experiencing in their own lives.
Financial businesses should look to segment, analyse and speak to customers who have started managing their finances with them since the beginning of the year and interrogate their behaviours. This will provide invaluable insight into what people are looking for and why.
Banks have an advantage here – when compared to other sectors – because saving, lending and current account journeys tend to start in apps or sites. By connecting site browsing with new customer account data, we can see individual demands expressed in the use of content, and the sorts of journeys customers are undertaking. Are these people struggling to complete a particular task i.e. setting up a direct debit? Is there something they’re entirely overlooking e.g. ISAs or loans?
At both the individual level and at an aggregate level, we can see emerging needs and trends. For example, the mortgage market has tightened up. Prior to Covid-19 there were 700+ 10% deposit home loans available, now there are less than 70. As a result, a decline in interest and a lack of ability for younger people to buy homes could signal a move towards people putting savings into ISAs. Likewise, too many customers are shifting to expensive and unsustainable debt, meaning providers need to imagine better ways to help combat this. This means designing value-adding solutions which helps maintain trust with the customer as well as encouraging them to come back.
Optimise journey flows:
The amount of tooling now available to understand journeys, identify breaks and ultimately address these issues is huge. There is no excuse not to be working hard on this, too many companies see a journey as set and overlook moments where design can be used to enhance processes. For example, why does opening online banking take five clicks and not one, and why is it so hard to find information about my pension?
Financial service providers of today cannot rely on a paradigmatic shift to new journeys with mounting financial pressures – their current ones need to evolve. If they aren’t continuously enhancing what they have today, it’s easier than ever for people to go elsewhere. Especially when 36% of people in the UK now feel more comfortable managing money online and 23% trust online money management more.
However, enhancements to services must be based on both customer needs gathered from qualitative insight and quantitative data from analytics and tracking tools to expose key problems. What you find out might mean redesigning specific moments in a journey, but it could also be done by improving signposting and information architecture, remarketing better, or tweaking content i.e. improving the findability of information connected to mortgage holidays.
Reasons to return:
Understanding people’s needs and targeting them drives better outcomes for all. Now is not the time for generic market offers because people’s immediate financial needs are significantly limited by Covid-19. The key to encouraging people to return is having a range of solutions that meet the specific needs of today. The credit card you had planned might not be what people need right now, but a compelling savings product could be. User research and insight will help you form validated hypotheses about offerings to test, and it’s precisely the kind of thing quantitative data alone will struggle to tell you.
Financial service providers also have the power to engage or reengage customers. They have ecosystems that join up channels to improve the likelihood of someone coming back. For example, if a customer opened an ISA in the past but stopped making deposits, perhaps it’s because they’re unaware of the annual limit on that sort of tax-free investment. If buy-to-let rates were reduced, perhaps they can afford that loan application abandoned last month. Financial providers need to harness the power of design to remind customers of the benefits available today.
As always, knowledge about customers and their needs has to be exposed, and new solutions devised to offer people ways back into your funnel. To do this you need a mix of research and data science to expose the problems for designers to work on.
Ease of use:
Across the financial services sector, digital design maturity is improving, but many processes are still unnecessarily cumbersome. Companies that have introduced rushed processes to support customers at a distance are likely to have solved an immediate problem, but to the detriment of the overall experience. Here, design thinking and service design can guide organisations toward optimising journeys to promote ease of use and coherent customer experiences.
Even months after the start of the pandemic, many organisations are struggling to maintain their inbound call centres and chat functions. On the whole, Help & Support pages offer just as poor an experience. These functions are often incomplete and overlooked, but are now the crux of banking experiences everywhere.
Banks must home in on these moments and provide other experiences in keeping with the standards set by the likes of First Direct’s award-winning telephone banking service. Within seconds, you’re through to an operator trained to handle loan applications, mortgage queries and more. The trick is to follow the right formula. You’ll want to avoid customers having to retain lots of information at once, navigating complex menu systems and always provide the option to speak with an operator. Services which adhere to this closely often outperform their digital counterparts – helping to relieve the strain placed on your overall experience.
Done well, conversational AI can make a big difference to customer experience and the likelihood of conversion too. Santander’s banking line harnesses this technology, and with a few vocal cues, you’re managing cash verbally. To succeed though, you must set up analytics, perform research and regularly optimise services to relieve friction and meet your customers’ ever-changing needs.
Providers are increasingly talking about optimisation but finding immediate opportunities to squeeze funnels and processes for more value cannot come at the expense of great customer experience. Now is the time for immediate changes but you need to make sure those changes are sustainable and consistent with everything else you have that supports your online ecosystem.
In essence, delivering efficiencies can’t overcome delivering a poorer customer experience long-term. Where this is true there is a customer-centred design job to be done in the better understanding of customers and behaviours, and therefore research and design more focussed on those needs.
This is a Sponsored Feature.
Increased contactless spending could be linked to higher fraud and payment disputes, warns global risk expert
The rapid adoption of contactless payments during COVID-19 may be contributing to multiple strands of fraud
Monica Eaton-Cardone, COO and Co-Founder of merchant dispute specialist, Chargebacks911, and its revolutionary new financial institution brand, Fi911, warns of the chargeback and fraud risks associated with the increase in contactless payments following the COVID-19 outbreak.
In a bid to reduce human interaction, the use of cash, and the touching of contact points such as PIN pads and cash machines, the UK’s contactless spending limit increased from £30 to £45 in April this year.
Customers across the globe have also got onboard with the payment method following contagion concerns about using cash and cards. As a result, Mastercard reported a 40% increase in contactless payment activity in Q1 of 2020.
This dramatic increase in contactless payments may be contributing to the sharp rise in chargebacks that have been recorded since the pandemic began. According to Cardone, industries are now experiencing 10 times the amount of payment disputes that were taking place prior to COVID-19.
Monica explained: “Contactless payments present a number of fraud threats. For one, if a valid cardholder’s information is stolen, it can be added to a mobile device and used to make unauthorised purchases – leaving merchants covering customers’ losses. In addition to this third-party fraud, contactless payments present a greater opportunity for genuine customers to commit first-party (friendly) fraud and lie about whether or not a transaction was actually made by them.
“These scenarios pose even more of a threat while the retail landscape is going through this turbulent period and genuine claims are on the rise, so merchants are in less of a position to dispute false claims.”
Although merchants are the ones left refunding customers and losing valuable goods due to chargebacks and friendly fraud, the issue doesn’t start and end with them. Behind a payment dispute is an intricate network of merchants, acquirers, issuers, and card schemes that deal with disputes and adopt their associated costs.
And, when merchants lose money to disputes, the cost will inevitably end up back with customers, since merchants raise prices to cope with these losses. This is likely to become a necessity in our current period of economic uncertainty.
For this reason, Monica warns everyone involved in the payment process to remain vigilant when it comes to chargebacks that stem from contactless payments.
Monica continued: “If merchants want to reap the benefits of contactless payments, they need to be aware of the threats involved and have strategies in place to respond effectively.
“At the same time, financial institutions should watch for activity that is unusual and out of line with typical consumer behaviour – for instance, a consumer suddenly making a high-value purchase at a store that’s thousands of miles away from home. They should also be on the lookout for repeated use of the chargeback process, which might indicate friendly fraud, as 40% of consumers who commit this fraud successfully will repeat the practice within 60 days.
“I also urge consumers to be aware of their account activity and to keep a close eye out for anything that may indicate that a contactless payment account has been compromised.”
Going forward, Monica is anticipating that contactless payment adoption will continue to grow, especially against the backdrop of COVID-19. To help combat the growing chargeback problem and fraud associated with contactless payments, Chargebacks911 is working closely with merchants – particularly those in the most susceptible industries – and financial institutions to tackle the issue head-on.
If you’re concerned about COVID-19 chargebacks effecting your business, speak to a member of the Chargebacks911 team at: [email protected].
Digital collaboration: Shaping the Future of Finance
By Ryan Lester, Senior Director of Customer Experience Technologies at LogMeIn With heightened economic uncertainty and increased customer expectation becoming...
The 2020 Outbound Email Data Breach Report Finds Growing Email Volumes and Stressed Employees are Causing Rising Breach Risk
Research by Egress reveals organisations suffer outbound email data breaches approximately every 12 working hours Egress, the leading provider of human layer data security solutions, today released their 2020 Outbound Email Data...
Regulating innovation: the biggest challenge in payments
By Fady Abdel-Nour, Global Head of M&A and Investments, PayU Over the course of the last six months, the payments...
Investors remain worried about COVID, but positive towards stamp duty holiday
By Jamie Johnson, CEO of FJP Investment The journey back to economic normality will be strenuous. COVID-19 has imbued many...
Creating a culture of cybersecurity in Financial Services
By Martin Landless, Vice President for Europe at LogRhythm As the financial services sector increasingly moves online and reaps the...
How the financial sector can keep newly acquired customers returning time and time again
By Dicken Doe from Foolproof, a Zensar company Covid-19 has changed the financial lives of millions; what worked for people...
Creating an engaging email marketing campaign that avoids the junk folder
By David Wharram, CEO of Coast Digital With more than 280 billion emails sent every day, email marketing is a...
Cloud in Banking: An Opportunity That Can’t be Ignored
By David Rimmer, Research Associate at Leading Edge Forum Originally offered as a better way to build IT systems, cloud...
Increased contactless spending could be linked to higher fraud and payment disputes, warns global risk expert
The rapid adoption of contactless payments during COVID-19 may be contributing to multiple strands of fraud Monica Eaton-Cardone, COO and...
Pay and Go, why seamless checkout is essential for the customer experience
By Ralf Gladis, CEO, Computop Shopping for many is therapy…until they reach the queue for the checkout. It’s easier online...