Connect with us

Finance

Why are e-signature solutions important for the financial industry?

Published

on

Why are e-signature solutions important for the financial industry?

Sam Crook -Solution Sales, SigningHub by Ascertia

Technology’srapid rise is driving every company to search out new business models based on digitisation and automation.

Despite the banking industry’s reputation for being resistant to change and slow in embracing new technologies due to regulatory requirements, nowadays the industry is keeping pace with new trends.

For example, an increasing number of financial organisations are testing robo-advisors for automating repetitive, complex tasks that until recently would have required significant resources and human input.

Paperless processes are another important part of digital transformation and something financial institutions are deploying to provide a better customer experience, cut costs and increase efficiency and productivity.

In fact, e-signatures – one crucial element of a successful transition to paperless banking–are gaining momentum in all industries and according to research the market could reach £2,590m by 2022.

But why are e-signatures so important for the financial industry in particular? 

Cutting costs

Because they help organisations reduce costs for one!

Even though an electronic signature solution sometimes requires a substantial initial investment, long-term cost savings far outweigh the initial cost.

Paper may seem affordable but when all its associated costs are added up, paper is actually extremely expensive.

Take a study that interviewedU.S. companies as an example. It found they typically print 1.5 trillion pages per year — that’s a 95,000 mile-high stack of paper, the equivalent of nearly 20 million trees.

Companies also need to add printing and photocopying costs into their assessments, which within a large organisation can be significant, especially one as heavily regulated as banking with the need for full audit trails.

Another important cost saving that going paperless brings is storage. Companies that aren’t using digital archives retain paper copies of signed documents in secure areas. This means the organisation has to invest significant resources and time into filing, storing, auditing and securely disposing of documents. Of course, if there are several parties involved the costs multiply exponentially.

Withe-signature solutions, documents can be stored in robust on-premise servers or in secure private cloud systems, eliminating the need for physical files, large document repositories and even security guard costs.

Next are the financial penalties relating to fraud and non-compliance. These are important to keep in mind.

Paper records can lead to gaps in compliance because it’s so easy to alter signed documents as well as the fact that handwritten signatures can be easily forged.

Furthermore paper documents are easily lost or can be destroyed intentionally. This would lead to significant financial losses through fraudulent activity, expensive lawsuits or hefty regulatory fines.

Electronic signatures instead protect a document’s integrity. With advanced electronic signatures designed to be secure and traceable, a change to even one character of the document’s content would render the signature as invalid. The identity of the signer is bound to the document and cannot be disputed due to timestamp and identity verification measures.

Lastly from a cost perspective are the significant costs from having to circulate and deliver documents to various parties. Considering the volume of projects and customers a financial institution manages every day, paper delivery costs can be a significant burden on the company’s bottom line while in contrast the cost of electronically transferring a document is nominal.

 Increased productivity

Another area that’s improved by e-signatures is how people work together.

Paper documents need sending from one party to another and back again, resulting in days or even weeks before the documents have been circulated to all parties.

Electronic signatures cut document workflow cycles from weeks to days or even minutes by enabling all parties to sign the documents simultaneously no matter their location.

In this way financial advisors and staff can accelerate long, complicated processes and gain more time to focus on building customer relationships, trust and loyalty.

 Stronger security and compliance

Both retail and institutional banks must provide customers and investors with the utmost confidence that their personal information will not end up in the wrong hands. This includes customer statements, investment authorisations, legal records and the swathe of other documents that underpin modern banking.

Qualified electronic signatures provide the highest level of trust and assurance because these use unique signing keys for every signer. This directly links the user’s identity to the signed document and verifies their action, as well as being compliant with the EU eIDAS regulation

In addition to the evidence provided by the signature itself, solutions can also provide additional evidence in the form of detailed audit information on user actions (including precise dates and times of signing), IP addresses, authentication mechanisms, legal notices and signatures applied.

With the banking industry requiring the utmost security it is important to understand the difference between types of e-signatures and their validity. Basic, Advanced and Qualified Electronic Signatures can be used to address a variety of different use cases depending on whether user experience, trust or cost is the priority.

 Reduced environmental impact

In the last 40 years paper use has skyrocketed by 400% with companies using about 4 billion trees every year to satisfy their paper needs.

The use of electronic signatures reduces the amount of paper generated from printing and mailing the documents, helping banks to reduce their carbon footprints and companies to achieve their environmental and CSR targets.

With these benefits in mind, amongst many others, it’s easy to see why financial institutions are adopting e-signatures and positioning themselves strategically as paperless institutions.

Finance

Five things shaping Britain’s financial rulebooks after Brexit

Published

on

Five things shaping Britain's financial rulebooks after Brexit 1

By Huw Jones

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain is conducting a review of its financial rulebooks and policies to see how it can keep its 130 billion pound ($184 billion) finance sector competitive after Brexit left it largely cut off from the European Union.

The government is due to issue papers in the coming days outlining its approach to financial technology (fintech) and capital markets, while further down the line it’s expected to propose changes to the funds and insurance sectors.

Here are five things set to shape the City of London financial hub following its loss of access to the EU:

BIG BANG DEBATE

Britain’s finance ministry is reviewing financial regulation and insurance capital rules, with minister Rishi Sunak raising the prospect of a “Big Bang 2.0” to maintain the City’s competitiveness, a reference to liberalisation of trading in the 1980s.

But it’s unclear how far any deregulation could go given that Britain says it won’t undermine global standards.

UK Finance, a banking body, wants a formal remit for regulators to ditch rules that put them at a competitive disadvantage globally. Insurers want cuts in capital requirements to free up cash for green and long term investments.

But the Bank of England says the City must not become an “anything goes” financial centre, and that insurers hold the right amount of capital.

Cross-border firms want to avoid Britain diverging from international norms as this would add to compliance costs.

City veterans say Britain should focus on allowing firms to hire globally, and ensuring that regulators respond nimbly and proportionately to crypto-assets, sustainable finance, long-term investing and restructurings after COVID-19.

COPYING NEW YORK

London has fallen behind New York in attracting company flotations and a government-backed review of listing rules is likely to recommend allowing “dual class” shares and a lower “free float”, perhaps for a limited period.

Dual class shares are stocks in the same company with different voting rights, while “free float” refers to the proportion of a company’s shares that are publicly available.

The potential changes could attract more tech and fintech companies whose founders typically want to retain a large degree of control.

It could also recommend making it easier for special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) – businesses that raise money on stock markets to buy other companies – an area in which New York has also dominated, with Amsterdam catching up fast.

UK asset managers warn that strong corporate governance standards could be diluted by tinkering with listing rules.

BEYOND SANDBOXES

Britain is home to one of the world’s biggest innovative fintech sectors, its “sandboxes” – which allow fintech firms to test new products on real consumers under regulatory supervision – copied across the world. But Brexit means Britain has to work harder to attract and retain fintechs as they will no longer have direct access to the world’s biggest trading area.

A government-backed review to buttress the sector is due to report back on Friday with recommendations that could include cutting red tape for fintechs that want to recruit staff from across the world, and make listing in Britain more attractive.

Other ideas could include helping fledgling fintech navigate government departments and regulators more easily, along with ways of boosting funding for start-ups.

FUNDS ARE THE FUTURE

Britain is reviewing how to make itself a more competitive place for listing investment funds, a core tool for bringing fresh capital into markets.

UK-based asset managers run many funds listed in the EU, but this global system of cross-border management known as delegation could be tightened up by the bloc.

Having more funds listed in Britain would also mean that the shares they hold would be traded in London. Billions of euros in trading euro shares have left the UK for Amsterdam since Brexit due to the bloc’s restrictions on where funds can trade shares.

THINK GLOBAL

As the City will get only limited access at best to the EU, industry officials say it makes more sense to focus on getting better access to other markets like Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and the United States, while at the same time keeping the UK financial market open to the world, including the EU.

Negotiations between Britain and Switzerland for a “mutual recognition” deal in financial rules is the way to go, industry officials say. Better global access would also keep the City ahead of EU centres like Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt.

($1 = 0.7056 pounds)

(Reporting by Huw Jones. Editing by Mark Potter)

Continue Reading

Finance

How the Brexit Agreement Failed the Financial Services Sector

Published

on

How the Brexit Agreement Failed the Financial Services Sector 2

By Steve Taklalsingh, MD UK Business, Amaiz

Over the Valentine’s weekend, it was announced that during January, the first month that the new Brexit-related changes came into force, Amsterdam overtook London as the largest financial trading centre in Europe. Approximately €9.2bn (£8.1bn) worth of shares were traded on Amsterdam’s exchanges each day in January, against €8.6bn in London. How did that happen and why is Brexit to blame?

The Brexit deal for the Financial Sector

The Christmas Eve Brexit agreement delivered an unfair market for UK companies in the Financial Services Sector. The deal meant we were left in a situation where EU-based banks wanting to buy European shares cannot trade via London. EU shares that were previously traded in the UK have moved to the EU on advice of the European regulator. In addition, EU FinTech companies can operate in the UK but, as ‘equivalence’ (agreeing to recognise each other’s regulations) has not been agreed, our FinTech companies cannot now operate in the EU. You can already see evidence of EU companies, particularly those based in Amsterdam and Germany, eyeing up the UK market.

As a sector we’ve never been shy of boasting about our 12% contribution to the UK’s GDP. FinTech, in particular, has been a UK success story. This vibrant scene is looked on with some envy and I’m very proud to be part of it.  Internationally, having a foothold in this market, and a London address, was the aspiration of financial services companies who wanted to be taken seriously, but not anymore.

Action to solve the market distortion

The Bank of England chief Andrew Bailey has warned that there are signs that the EU plans to cut off the UK from its financial markets and has urged them not to do so. The indications are that the Government is aware of the ‘problem’ but doesn’t appear to see the clear urgency in resolving it. It has been reported that there are ongoing talks to harmonise rules over financial regulations (equivalence) and that they’re working towards a March deadline.

Number 10 has said they are open to discussions on the equivalence issue and claims that the Government has ‘supplied the necessary paperwork’ and boasts of the UK’s strong regulatory system. It lays the fault of delay firmly at the doorstep of the EU: “Fragmentation of share trading across financial centres is in no one’s interest.” I’m disappointed that they’re not, in public, recognising the seriousness of the situation.

Research on the impact of Brexit

At Amaiz we have worked hard to understand the implications of Brexit. At the beginning of December we carried out research which focussed on the impact on financial services. The report, Brexit Brink: Are British SMEs about to fall off the edge of Europe – or building new bridges? is based on a survey of SMEs across the UK and you can download it free from www.https://journal.amaiz.com/amaiz-guide/.  Our findings gave us valuable insight into the deal that was needed for Financial Services.

Most companies had been preparing for Brexit for some years.  Whilst there were some that hoped and campaigned for the referendum result to be overturned, that seemed unlikely.  The results of our research in December showed that people were as ready as they could be:

  • Nearly half (49.2%) of company decision makers had reviewed new regulations set to take force on 1 January 2021 (if there was a no deal Brexit) and made changes to ensure their companies would meet them.
  • Only 17% of companies said they had failed to prepare.

The changes that company leaders believed would have the most impact were those to regulations (37.4% of respondents said this was a concern), increased costs of doing business (37.2%), and reduced access to suppliers (35.5%).  Overall, 57% of companies believed that Brexit would have a negative impact on their business, and some (6.6%) believed it would destroy their business.

The research found that larger companies were more prepared for Brexit than smaller ones. That’s likely to due to their ability to devote resources to solving the challenges Brexit presents. Those employing between 1 and 10 people were most concerned about increased costs (45.7%) and those with between 11 and 50 employees about taxes and VAT (41.3%).

Larger companies in Financial Services prepared for Brexit by registering companies and offices within the EU so that they could continue trading there. This acted as a fail-safe solution that avoided issues, whether a deal was struck or not, and whatever the nature of that deal.  Smaller companies don’t have the resources to do this; they could not open another office on the off chance that they would need it, so Brexit put them in a more vulnerable position.

Impact on the economy

Of course, Brexit came at a time when we were all trying to manage the devastating impact of the pandemic. The FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and FSB (Federation of Small Business) both published figures in January that show the terrible impact of the pandemic on SMEs in the UK. The FCA found that 59% of smaller financial firms expected that their profits would take a hit this year[1]. The FSB found that nearly 5% of smaller companies expect to be forced to close within 12 months, the largest proportion in the history of the Small Business Index and would mean that 295,000 companies will close this year[2].

A plea to the Government

The Government has worked hard to find ways to help small businesses survive the pandemic in order to save jobs. The economy is experiencing an unprecedented recession, with all hopes laid on a swift bounce back as soon as lock down ends. Until then we are in ‘war’ mode. However, helping businesses survive is not just about handing out cash. What the Financial Services Sector urgently needs is a fair regulatory framework and marketplace in which UK business can operate. Instead, the Government has allowed distortions that continue to damage one of the country’s key sectors – one that can drive us out of recession – and appear laid back about resolving the situation!

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-markets/up-to-4000-financial-firms-could-fail-due-to-covid-says-uk-regulator-idUKKBN29C0R7?edition-redirect=in

[2] https://www.fsb.org.uk/resources-page/at-least-250-000-uk-small-businesses-set-to-fold-without-further-help-new-study-warns.html

Continue Reading

Finance

Bitcoin tumbles 17% as doubts grow over valuations

Published

on

Bitcoin tumbles 17% as doubts grow over valuations 3

By Tom Wilson and Tom Westbrook

LONDON/SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Bitcoin tumbled 17% on Tuesday, sparking a sell-off across cryptocurrency markets as investors grew nervous at sky-high valuations and leveraged players took profit.

The world’s biggest cryptocurrency suffered its biggest daily drop in a month, falling as low $45,000. Bitcoin was last down 11.3% at 0939 GMT.

The drop extended a slump of nearly a fifth from a record high of $58,354 hit on Sunday – though bitcoin remains up around 60% for the year.

“The kinds of rallies we’ve been seeing aren’t sustainable and just invite pullbacks like this,” said Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at OANDA.

Ether, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalisation that often moves in tandem with bitcoin, also dropped more than 17% and last bought $1,461, down almost 30% from last week’s record peak.

Cryptocurrency markets have been running hot this year as big money managers and companies begin to take the emerging asset class seriously, piling money into the sector and driving confidence among small-time speculators.

A $1.5 billion investment in the crytocurrency by electric carmaker Tesla this month has helped vault bitcoin above $50,000 but may now lead to pressure on the company’s stock price as it has become sensitive to movements in bitcoin.

Rising government bond yields over recent days have hit riskier assets, spilling over into leveraged bitcoin markets, said Richard Galvin of crypto fund Digital Asset Capital Management.

“Markets were quite hit from a leverage perspective so that didn’t help,” he added.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who has flagged the need to regulate cryptocurrencies more closely, also said on Monday that bitcoin is extremely inefficient at conducting transactions and is a highly speculative asset.

Critics say the cryptocurrency’s high volatility is among reasons that it has so far failed to gain widespread traction as a means of payment.

Analysts said key price levels have played a large part in determining the direction of crypto markets.

“Because we’re so lacking in fundamentals, it’s the big figures that have proved to be support and resistance points,” said Michael McCarthy, chief strategist at brokerage CMC Markets in Sydney.

“$50,000, $40,000 and $30,000 are the key chart levels at the moment. If we see it heading through $50,000, selling could accelerate.”

(Reporting by Tom Westbrook; Editing by Jacqueline Wong and Nick Macfie)

Continue Reading
Editorial & Advertiser disclosureOur website provides you with information, news, press releases, Opinion and advertorials on various financial products and services. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third party websites, affiliate sales networks, and may link to our advertising partners websites. Though we are tied up with various advertising and affiliate networks, this does not affect our analysis or opinion. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you, or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a partner endorsed link.

Call For Entries

Global Banking and Finance Review Awards Nominations 2021
2021 Awards now open. Click Here to Nominate

Latest Articles

Newsletters with Secrets & Analysis. Subscribe Now