Regulatory Oversight on FinTech or Digital Credit

POLICY GUIDELINES: REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR FINTECH AND DIGITAL CREDIT

Credit provision has traditionally suffered from problems of information asymmetry, with banks specializing in credit risk analysis — a costly and resource-intensive process that makes it commercially unviable to assess many individuals and MSMEs. More often in developing nations, credit bureaus are established to aggregate credit data from various sources of financial information.

The use of FinTech in credit risk assessments involves using alternative data sources (utility payment data, e-commerce purchasing data, social media for behavioral data) instead of traditional financial data for the credit risk assessment process. This can allow formal financial institutions to gain a more holistic view of a potential borrower’s creditworthiness and allow MSMEs without sufficient formal collateral to become eligible to access formal credit and reduce their reliance on informal lenders. These constraints are more pronounced for women who face less opportunities to own traditional forms of collateral or use formal financial services and products to build their credit history.

The use of new types of alternative customer data for financial information through FinTech for credit risk assessments raises significant data protection and privacy concerns. These concerns include allowing third party access to information without consent, and security risks that include fraud and identity theft. There are also growing concerns around potential algorithm bias in the credit assessment model and the lack of mechanisms to detect and mitigate such biases. This increased vulnerability to discriminatory lending decisions, fraud and disruption could negatively impact MSMEs access to financial services and further marginalize the traditionally underserved segments such as women-owned MSMEs and women entrepreneurs in the future. The use of digital credit comes with consumer protection risks. The lack of opportunity to gain high levels of digital literacy and capability, and access to timely and reliable information, especially among the underserved segments such as women-owned MSMEs and women entrepreneurs, further exacerbates these risks. To increase usage, digital credit lenders use big data to reach new customers to increase applications to their small-sized and short-termed loans. Key details, such as interest and late-payment fees, are often not communicated among other terms and conditions, posing a risk of delinquency and the further financial exclusion of borrowers.

The following sections will provide details on several subsets of FinTech regulations, namely oversight on digital credit, using regulatory sandboxes for FinTech related policies, credit referencing system and operations, market conduct on digital credit, data privacy and consumer protection, and credit information sharing.4

Regulatory Oversight on FinTech or Digital Credit

Regulatory frameworks for FinTech credit continue to evolve as this new phenomenon further develops. Several jurisdictions are putting in place new forms of licenses for FinTech platforms. Regulators and supervisors should closely monitor the development of the digital credit players and models and ensure that all credit providers and related third parties are properly licensed, regulated and fall under the financial supervisors’ oversight, to avoid regulatory gaps. Additionally, measures should be in place to ensure that consumers are adequately protected, particularly those from underserved or unserved segments such as women MSMEs and women entrepreneurs, regardless of the provider they use to access digital credit.

Regulators and supervisors are advised to have a robust legal mandate for licensing, regulating and supervising market conduct for the provision of digital credit. The examples below feature different legal classifications of FinTech activities, including digital credit products and services, and how they are regulated in their respective local contexts. Key gender considerations need to be integrated into the policy mandate and regulation at the outset and during any review of existing policies, regulations, and guidelines.

FIGURE 4: UGANDA'S LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF FINTECH ACTIVITIES

Crowdfunding activity in Uganda is mainly done via donation platforms, primarily those based in foreign and developed countries leaving little domestic platform activity. Uganda currently has no legislation that specifically provides for equity or loan-based crowdfunding. Donation and reward crowdfunding fall outside the jurisdiction of financial regulators. However, there are relevant regulations and applicable legislation that can be leveraged into the crowdfunding industry:

1. The Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and

Money Lenders Act (2016), regulated by the

Ugandan Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA), was enacted to legitimize money lenders who are outside the radar of any regulator. It also recognized the importance of informal lending in the promotion of financial inclusion of the unbanked population and attempts to regulate the industry. This act required licensing, record-keeping, and direct oversight by the authority in the hopes of reining in rogue and unscrupulous money lending practices. Crowdfunding platforms and businesses will have to follow the guidelines within the Act.

2. The Anti-Money Laundering Act (2013) and the Financial Institutions (Anti-Money

Laundering) Regulations (2010) set out detailed requirements and obligations on accountable persons involved in financial transactions.

Requirements include establishing ‘Know-Your-

Customer’ systems and processes, the recording of transactions, and mechanisms for reporting suspicious transactions. Crowdfunding businesses qualify as accountable persons under the Anti-

Money Laundering Act and are subject to these guidelines.

Source: Africa Legal Network, 2021. (https://www. africalegalnetwork.com/legal-alert-uganda-new-regulationsmoney-lending/)

FIGURE 5: MALAYSIA'S P2P FINANCING FRAMEWORK

In 2015, Malaysia introduced a regulatory framework to facilitate equity crowdfunding. In 2016, a regulatory framework for P2P was developed by the Securities Commission setting out requirements for the registration of a P2P.

Since the introduction of the ECF and P2P regulatory framework in Malaysia in 2016, the Securities Commission has registered 21 platforms to provide regulated crowdfunding options to meet the financing needs of MSMEs. These platforms have attracted strong interest from MSMEs and retail investors. In 2020, more than 2,500 MSMEs raised more than MYR1 billion (roughly USD250 million) through regulated crowdfunding markets of the Malaysian capital market.

The guidelines include roles of P2P operators that cover due diligence, compliance, data and financial transparency, and processes in the case of default or delinquency. Additionally, consumer empowerment and market conduct measures such as disclosure, transparency and dispute resolution were placed on P2P operators.

Source: FAQ on P2P Framework, Press Release “Malaysia’s Regulated Crowdfunding Markets Cross RM 1 billion Mark”