As part of the recent FinTech Melbourne Meet Up, there was some discussion on the regulatory challenges startups face when trying to validate an early-stage concept. The notion of a safe harbour or “regulatory sandbox” has gained some momentum, with ASIC’s Innovation Hub, and a commentary by Deborah Ralston, of the Australian Centre for Financial Services, who is also inaugural Chair of ASIC’s Digital Finance Advisory Committee.

If we assume that the main purposes of financial regulation are: system stability, minimum professional standards, consumer confidence, investor protection, market transparency and risk mitigation, then I doubt anyone can deny the benefit of a formal and robust compliance regime. However, technology and innovation are combining to challenge and disrupt the inherent inefficiencies that can accrue within a static regulatory environment (especially one that is reactive, rather than pro-active), which is largely designed to monitor legacy frameworks and incumbant institutions.

While the ASIC initiative is not the same as obtaining an ATO private tax ruling, it does at least show that the regulator is keen to be more consultative in helping startups test new ideas. But the reality is the cost of initial compliance and licensing can be a barrier to a new venture, before the concept has even been market-tested. So perhaps there is an opportunity to ring-fence emergent FinTech ventures, so they can explore real-world applications, but limited by market scope, number of participants, transaction values and timeframes. (Such a model already exists for private equity offerings….)

As it stands, in the case of P2P lending platforms, a startup might find itself having to be licensed and regulated as a financial services provider, an approved consumer credit provider, an authorised depository institute and possibly a licensed financial planner as well. That’s a lot of compliance for a new business that might not even have a single customer.

From my own experience, what constitutes “financial advice” is subject to very wide interpretation. Several years ago, I was responsible for introducing a new financial product to the local market – a bond pricing information service. The service was aimed only at institutional investors (not retail customers), based on collated and published data supplied by existing market participants. Nor was it a real-time data feed; rather, it delivered intraday and end of day prices calculated on actual traded bonds. Yet the regulator determined this constituted “financial advice”, even though no trading recommendation or investment decision was inherent in the data. It was also designed to offer a more transparent and objective process for pricing portfolios of less liquid or rarely traded securities, where mark-to-market solutions are unavailable or inappropriate – thereby providing some clarity to market participants.

Meanwhile, the responses to shady advice and other malfeasance inflicted upon retail investors by “established” financial institutions and “traditional” financial planners usually take years to work their way through the legal and regulatory processes of investigation, mediation, settlement and prosecution. (And if anyone wants to understand what actually caused the GFC, well before the term FinTech had been coined, check out John Lanchester’s book “Whoops!”)

Next week: What I want from a mobile banking app.