Skip to main content
  • Sections
  • Search

Center for Strategic & International Studies

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Sign In

   Ranked #1 Think Tank in U.S. by Global Go To Think Tank Index

Topics

  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity and Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Governance
    • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy
    • Military Technology
    • Space
    • Technology and Innovation
  • Defense and Security
    • Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
    • Defense Budget
    • Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation
    • Defense Strategy and Capabilities
    • Geopolitics and International Security
    • Long-Term Futures
    • Missile Defense
    • Space
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
  • Economics
    • Asian Economics
    • Global Economic Governance
    • Trade and International Business
  • Energy and Sustainability
    • Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts
    • Energy and Geopolitics
    • Energy Innovation
    • Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks
  • Global Health
    • Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations
    • Multilateral Institutions
    • Health and Security
    • Infectious Disease
  • Human Rights
    • Civil Society
    • Transitional Justice
    • Human Security
  • International Development
    • Food and Agriculture
    • Governance and Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Private Sector Development
    • U.S. Development Policy

Regions

  • Africa
    • North Africa
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Americas
    • Caribbean
    • North America
    • South America
  • Arctic
  • Asia
    • Afghanistan
    • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
    • China
    • India
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Pakistan
    • Southeast Asia
  • Europe
    • European Union
    • NATO
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Turkey
  • Middle East
    • The Gulf
    • Egypt and the Levant
    • North Africa
  • Russia and Eurasia
    • The South Caucasus
    • Central Asia
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Russia

Sections menu

  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
    • Blogs
    • Books
    • Commentary
    • Congressional Testimony
    • Critical Questions
    • Interactive Reports
    • Journals
    • Newsletter
    • Reports
    • Transcript
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • Web Projects

Main menu

  • About Us
  • Support CSIS
    • Securing Our Future
Photo: Adobe Stock
Blog Post - The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Printfriendly.com

Building a U.S.-UK FinTech Sandbox?

March 7, 2018

The United States and United Kingdom have been at the forefront of the FinTech industry, spawning hundreds of companies that help consumers and companies borrow, raise capital, lend, get insured, and pay online. But between these empowering tools and their potential users is a sprawl of regulations that make it costly for FinTechs to scale, especially in the United States, and complicate UK FinTechs’ prospects to serve markets on both sides of the Atlantic. Could the market FinTechs in particular be more integrated between the U.S and UK, for the hop across the pond to be just that?

Proliferating to number 6,000 around the planet, FinTech startups have disrupted the world of financial services dinosaurs, such as banks, insurance companies, and credit card businesses. In the process, they have done a great deal of good, for example opening access to fast-disbursing loans to small businesses in rural regions and segments abandoned by banks, helping women entrepreneurs raise capital more easily for their businesses than they would from VCs, and enabling a friend to pay another for a dinner (or perhaps completed homework!) with a tap of their phones. In record year, in 2015 venture capital investment in U.S. FinTech hit a record $6 billion and in UK $676 million. Online loans from FinTechs are still a couple of percentages of small business loans made by banks in the U.S., but they are growing some 20 times faster.

Yet bringing FinTech innovations to market is costly, due to the myriad of regulations surrounding financial services. Of course, some rules are in the books for a good reason – such as to prevent fraudulent crowdfunding campaigns or predatory lending practices. UK has helpfully lowered FinTechs’ time and money to market with the sandbox approach, whereby companies can bring to market a new financial product or service without the entire gamut of regulatory approvals, and regulators can watch the market develop and regulate undesirable behaviors out.

Various countries such as Australia, Singapore, and Thailand have copied the sandbox in order to energize their FinTech ecosystems. With nearly a dozen federal and a range of state agencies regulating FinTech, the U.S. has its own sandbox proposal – in a bill calling for a Financial Services Innovation Office to (FSIO) to support the development of financial innovations.

Yet a critical problem remains: each country (and in the U.S., each state) has its own financial services regulations that do not interoperate well. This forces FinTechs scaling across borders to adopt rules and apply for licenses specific to each new market. For example, a British (or for that, an American) online lender seeking to service all U.S. states will have to meet each state’s regulations. Or, a U.S. equity crowdfunding site that wants its clients be able to solicit UK investors would need to do costly paperwork to ensure the securities sale was in line with UK’s securities laws, not just with the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These frictions make the very point of FinTech, or any “-Tech” scalability, much harder to attain than is the case for, say, social media or ecommerce companies. The regulatory mismatches are reflected in the cost and time – on average, $2 million and 2 years – it takes to make a U.S. FinTech to scale and get into black. Granted, venture capital for FinTechs is more amply available in the U.S. than UK, but it’s tougher to build a FinTech in the U.S. without it. Similarly, expanding to the U.S. market is an option only for those UK companies that have deep enough pockets to meet the various regulations. This limits U.S. and UK consumers' and companies’ access to innovative financial services.

The obvious way to help FinTechs take off faster with less is to make transatlantic financial regulations interoperate.

The United Kingdom has made good headway on this idea – with Canada. In February 2017, UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Ontario Securities Commission of Canada signed an agreement to refer to one another innovative businesses seeking to enter the other’s market and help them navigate regulations and lower time to market. The deal is hailed as a template for the first cross-border regulatory collaboration in the FinTech market. And so it probably was intended: just a month earlier, FCA’s new Chief Executive Andrew Bailey gave a speech stressing the need for global regulatory standards as the basis to govern market access for financial services firms. For its part, the Ontario Securities Commission of Canada had earlier concluded a similar deal with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. UK and Australia have also created a FinTech bridge to enable their respective FinTechs to play in each other's markets. UK has created similar bridges with South Korea and Singapore, among others.

Meanwhile U.S. has made progress on creating uniform state law to be adopted across all states to regulate Bitcoin and virtual currency businesses, and states and the federal bank regulator Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are on their respective fronts (and egged on by each other) working on a more uniform rules for online lenders across states. In addition, in January 2017 the USTR and Treasury created with the EU the first insurance “covered agreement” to resolve the disparate treatment of U.S. insurers operating across EU member states, and to eliminate collateral requirements for EU insurers in the United States.

These efforts provide a great basis for a U.S.-UK deal to create a common market for FinTechs looking to service users on both side of the Atlantic. Paul Thanos has proposed U.S. and UK pilot an InsurTech Greenhouse, a lusher, binational version of the sandbox, that would enable U.S. and UK InsurTech companies to do beta tests that regulators could then assess and learn to determine which companies are ready for licensing. With the ongoing drives in the U.S. and UK to bridge regulatory islands, timing is right to scale the idea into a U.S.-UK FinTech Sandbox. And let’s bring the Canadians and Australians to play in it too.

Written By
Kati Suominen
Adjunct Fellow (Non-resident), Europe Program
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Related
Europe, Europe in the World, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program, European Union, Lillan and Robert D. Stuart Jr. Center in Euro-Atlantic and Northern European Studies, Scholl Chair in International Business, Technology and Innovation, The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK

More from this blog

Blog Post
Must Third Countries Choose Between EU or U.S. Digital Trade Protection Preferences?
By William Alan Reinsch
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
July 11, 2018
Blog Post
An Opportunity to Bridge the Pond's Digital Gap
By William Alan Reinsch
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
May 4, 2018
Blog Post
The Global Battle for Digital Trade
By Jonathan E. Hillman
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
April 13, 2018
Blog Post
A Data Localization Free-for-All?
By William Alan Reinsch
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
March 9, 2018
Blog Post
Blockchain to Accelerate Transatlantic Trade
By Kati Suominen
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
February 23, 2018
Blog Post
No Choice? GDPR's Impact on the U.S., UK, and the EU
By Kati Suominen
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
January 31, 2018
Blog Post
Fueling the Ecommerce Boom in U.S.-UK Trade
By Kati Suominen
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
November 2, 2017
Blog Post
Where the Money Is: The Transatlantic Digital Market
By Kati Suominen
In The Future of Digital Trade Policy and the Role of the U.S. and UK
October 12, 2017

Related Content

On Demand Event
Progress toward Global Energy Transitions
July 16, 2019
On Demand Event
Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals
March 7, 2019
Commentary
What to Watch in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2019
By Judd Devermont
January 7, 2019
On Demand Event
Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
June 18, 2019
On Demand Event
Sustainable Development Goal #5: Gender Equality
July 24, 2019
Report
What to Look for in the FY 2020 Defense Budget Request
By Kathleen H. Hicks, Andrew Philip Hunter, Mark F. Cancian, Todd Harrison, Seamus P. Daniels
January 31, 2019
Commentary
The Mexican Government's Response to Covid-19 Is Insufficient
By Gladys McCormick
April 8, 2020
Report
The Role of the AfDB and the Future of Africa
By Daniel F. Runde
October 10, 2019
Footer menu
  • Topics
  • Regions
  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
  • Web Projects
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • About Us
  • Support Us
Contact CSIS
Email CSIS
Tel: 202.887.0200
Fax: 202.775.3199
Visit CSIS Headquarters
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Daily Updates

Sign up to receive The Evening, a daily brief on the news, events, and people shaping the world of international affairs.

Subscribe to CSIS Newsletters

Follow CSIS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

All content © 2020. All rights reserved.

Legal menu
  • Credits
  • Privacy Policy
  • Reprint Permissions