Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital
  4. Vol. 52, Issue 3
  5. pp. 323–373

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Gerlach, J., Rugilo, D. The Predicament of FinTechs in the Environment of Traditional Banking Sector Regulation – An Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes as a Possible Solution. Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, 52(3), 323-373. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.52.3.323
Gerlach, Johannes M. and Rugilo, Daniel "The Predicament of FinTechs in the Environment of Traditional Banking Sector Regulation – An Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes as a Possible Solution" Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital 52.3, 2019, 323-373. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.52.3.323
Gerlach, Johannes M./Rugilo, Daniel (2019): The Predicament of FinTechs in the Environment of Traditional Banking Sector Regulation – An Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes as a Possible Solution, in: Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, vol. 52, iss. 3, 323-373, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.52.3.323
Format
Download

The Predicament of FinTechs in the Environment of Traditional Banking Sector Regulation – An Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes as a Possible Solution

Gerlach, Johannes M. | Rugilo, Daniel

Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, Vol. 52 (2019), Iss. 3 : pp. 323–373

2 Citations (CrossRef)

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.52.3.323
Language
English
Pages
51
Keywords

Author Details

Johannes M. Gerlach M.Sc., Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Chair of Financial Services, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225 Düsseldorf

Daniel Rugilo M.Sc., University of Cologne, Department of Financial Accounting and Auditing, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Köln

Cited By

  1. The effects of perceived value dimensions on customer satisfaction and loyalty: a comparison between traditional banks and fintechs

    Mainardes, Emerson Wagner | Freitas, Neudson Peres de

    International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 41 (2023), Iss. 3 P.641

    https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2022-0437 [Citations: 7]

  2. Designing Stress Tests for UK Fast-Growing Firms and Fintech

    Pantos, Stavros

    Risks, Vol. 11 (2023), Iss. 2 P.31

    https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020031 [Citations: 3]

References

  1. Accenture (2016): Regulierung von FinTechs: Eine Chance für Banken?  Google Scholar
  2. AGV Banken (2015): No doom and gloom, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  3. Akerlof, G. A. (1970): The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 3, 488–500.  Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, K. (2006): Corporate governance and banks: The role of regulation in reducing the principal-agent problem. Journal of Banking Regulation, 7, 1–2, 17–40.  Google Scholar
  5. Allen, H. J. (2018): A US Regulatory Sandbox? Draft Dated February 8, 2018.  Google Scholar
  6. Arner, D./Barberis, J./Buckley, R. P. (2016): The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47, 1271–1319.  Google Scholar
  7. Arner, D./Barberis, J./Buckley, R. P. (2017): FINTECH AND REGTECH IN A NUTSHELL, AND THE FUTURE IN A SANDBOX, Research Foundation Briefs.  Google Scholar
  8. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017a): Regulatory Guide 257. Testing fintech products and services without holding an AFS or credit licence.  Google Scholar
  9. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017b): Report 523. ASIC’s Innovation Hub and our approach to regulatory technology.  Google Scholar
  10. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2018): Regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/innovation-hub/regulatory-sandbox/[Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  11. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019): Fintech regulatory sandbox – Regulatory sandbox: Licence exemption users [Online]. Available: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/innovation-hub/fintech-regulatory-sandbox/regulatory-sandbox-licence-exemption-users/[Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  12. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (n/a): Licensing exemption for fintech testing [Online]. Available: https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4112096/licensing-exemption-for-fintech-testing-infographic.pdf [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  13. Bain, J. S. (1956): Barriers to new competition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Baker McKenzie (2017): A GUIDE TO REGULATORY FINTECH SANDBOXES ACROSS ASIA PACIFIC.  Google Scholar
  15. Bank for International Settlements (2017): Sound Practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank supervisors (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Consultative Document).  Google Scholar
  16. Barth, J. R./Caprio, G. J./Levine, R. (2004): Bank regulation and supervision: what works best? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13, 205–248.  Google Scholar
  17. Bennett, J./Estrin, S. (2013): Regulatory Barriers and Entry into a New Competitive Industry. Review of Development Economics, 17, 4, 685–698.  Google Scholar
  18. Besanko, D./Thakor, A. V. (1992): Banking deregulation: Allocational consequences of relaxing entry barriers. Journal of Banking and Finance, 16, 5, 909–932.  Google Scholar
  19. Bologna, M. J. (2017): Fed Official Dismisses ‘Regulatory Sandboxes’ for Fintech [Online]. Available: https://www.bna.com/fed-official-dismisses-n57982088022/[Accessed 11.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  20. Brown, J. R./Fazzari, S. M./Petersen, B. C. (2009): Financing Innovation and Growth: Cash Flow, External Equity, and the 1990s R&D Boom. The Journal of Finance, 64, 1, 151–185.  Google Scholar
  21. Brummer, C./Gorfine, D. (2014): FinTech: Building a 21st-Century Regulator’s Toolkit, Center for Financial Markets, Milken Institute.  Google Scholar
  22. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2016): 2015 Jahresbericht der Bundes­anstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.  Google Scholar
  23. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2017): 2016 Jahresbericht der Bundes­anstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.  Google Scholar
  24. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2018a): Aufgaben & Geschichte der BaFin [Online]. Available: https://www.bafin.de/DE/DieBaFin/AufgabenGeschichte/aufgabengeschichte_node.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  25. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2018b): Die BaFin stellt sich vor [Online]. Available: https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschuere/dl_b_bafin_stellt_sich_vor.pdf;jsessionid=68FB2F7450202BCFA799EC69B992376B.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  26. Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2017): BMF gründet FinTechRat [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Pressemitteilungen/Finanzpolitik/2017/03/2017-03-22-pm-fintech.html [Accessed 19.10.2018].  Google Scholar
  27. Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2019): Zwei Jahre FinTechRat: Erfolgreicher Dialog zwischen Politik und Praxis [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Internationales_Finanzmarkt/2019-03-21-zwei-jahre-fintech-rat.html [Accessed 08.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  28. Carlton, D./Perloff, J. (1994): Modern Industrial Organization, New York.  Google Scholar
  29. Christensen, C. M./Raynor, M./McDonald, R. (2015): The big idea: What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93, 12, 44–53.  Google Scholar
  30. Clifford Chance (2017): EUROPEAN FINTECH REGULATION – AN OVERVIEW.  Google Scholar
  31. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2013): Policy To Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 209.  Google Scholar
  32. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016a): Policy on No-Action Letters. Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 34.  Google Scholar
  33. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016b): Project Catalyst report: Promoting consumer-friendly innovation.  Google Scholar
  34. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2017): No-action letter, issued to “Upstart Network, Inc.” [Online]. Available: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_upstart-no-action-letter.pdf [Accessed 20.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  35. Deloitte (2014): Digital disruption: Threats and opportunities for retail financial services.  Google Scholar
  36. Deutsche Bundesbank (2018): FinTechs – Finanztechnologie Unternehmen [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Standardartikel/Aufgaben/Bankenaufsicht/fintechs.html [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  37. Dombret, A. R. (2016): Beyond technology – Adequate regulation and oversight in the age of fintechs. In: Banque de France (ed.) Financial stability in the digital era.  Google Scholar
  38. Dorfleitner, G./Hornuf, L./Schmitt, M./Weber, M. (2016): FinTech-Markt in Deutschland. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen.  Google Scholar
  39. Durand, R. B./Tarca, A. (2005): The impact of US GAAP reconciliation requirements on choice of foreign stock exchange for firms from common law and code law countries. European Accounting Review, 14, 4, 789–813.  Google Scholar
  40. Eichengreen, B./Portes, R. (1987): The anatomy of financial crises. NBER Working Paper Series No. 2126, 1–83.  Google Scholar
  41. Ernst & Young (2017a): As FinTech evolves, can financial services innovation be compliant?  Google Scholar
  42. Ernst & Young (2017b): EY FinTech Adoption Index 2017. The rapid emergence of FinTech.  Google Scholar
  43. Ernst & Young (2017c): EY FinTech Australia Census 2017. Profiling and defining the fintech sector.  Google Scholar
  44. European Banking Authority (2018): FinTech: Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs.  Google Scholar
  45. European Central Bank (2014): Guide to Banking Supervision, Frankfurt am Main.  Google Scholar
  46. Ferguson, J. M. (1974): Advertising and Competition: Theory, Mesurement, Act, Bal­linger Publishing Company.  Google Scholar
  47. Fest, A. (2008): Zwecke, Ansätze und Effizienz der Regulierung von Banken, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.  Google Scholar
  48. Financial Conduct Authority (2015a): Call for Input: Regulatory barriers to innovation in digital and mobile solutions [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/call-for-input/call-for-input-regulatory-barriers-to-innovation.pdf [Accessed 15.10.2018].  Google Scholar
  49. Financial Conduct Authority (2015b): Regulatory sandbox.  Google Scholar
  50. Financial Conduct Authority (2017a): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 1 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-1 [Accessed 04.06.2018]  Google Scholar
  51. Financial Conduct Authority (2017b): Regulatory sandbox lessons learned report.  Google Scholar
  52. Financial Conduct Authority (2017c): Sandbox tools [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/sandbox-tools [Accessed 04.06.2018]  Google Scholar
  53. Financial Conduct Authority (2018a): Applying to the regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/prepare-application [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  54. Financial Conduct Authority (2018b): Global sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/global-sandbox [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  55. Financial Conduct Authority (2018c): Regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  56. Financial Conduct Authority (2018d): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 2 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-2 [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  57. Financial Conduct Authority (2018e): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 3 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-3 [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  58. Financial Conduct Authority (2019a): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 4 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/regulatory-sandbox-cohort-4-businesses [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  59. Financial Conduct Authority (2019b): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 5 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-5 [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  60. Financial Conduct Authority (n/a): Default standards for sandbox testing parameters [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/default-standards-for-sandbox-testing-parameters.pdf [Accessed 06.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  61. Financial Services Authority (2013): A review of requirements for firms entering into or expanding in the banking sector.  Google Scholar
  62. Financial Stability Board (2017): Financial Stability Implications from FinTech: Super­visory and Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention.  Google Scholar
  63. Fintech Singapore (2017): PolicyPal becomes the First Start-Up to Graduate from the Mas Fintech Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: http://fintechnews.sg/11127/insurtech/policypal-becomes-first-start-graduate-mas-fintech-regulatory-sandbox/[Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  64. FinTechRat (2019): Stellungnahme des FinTechRat zur Blockchain-Strategie der Bundesregierung im Rahmen der öffentlichen Konsultation, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  65. Fisher, F. M. (1979): Diagnosing Monoply. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 671–697.  Google Scholar
  66. Freeman, C. (1995): Innovation and Growth. The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.  Google Scholar
  67. Freixas, X./Santomero, A. M. (2003): An Overall Perspective on Banking Regulation. UPF, Economics and Business Working Paper 664, 1–26.  Google Scholar
  68. Gerlach, C. A./Simmons, R. J./Lam, S. H. (2016): U.S. Regulation of FinTech – Recent Developments and Challenges. The Capco Institute Journal of Financial Transformation, 44, 87–96.  Google Scholar
  69. Gilbert, R. J. (1989): Mobility Barriers and the Value of Incumbency. Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1, 475–535.  Google Scholar
  70. Goldberg, I./Wagner, D./Thomas, R./Brewer, E. (1996): A Secure Environment for Untrusted Helper Applications (Confining the Wily Hacker). Proceedings of the Sixth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, 1996 San Jose, California.  Google Scholar
  71. Gomber, P./Koch, J.-A./Siering, M. (2017): Digital Finance and FinTech: current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87, 5, 537–580.  Google Scholar
  72. Goodhart, C./Hartmann, P./Llewellyn, D. T./Rojas-Suarez, L./Weisbrod, S. (2013): Financial regulation: Why, how and where now?, London and New York, Routledge. Published in association with the Bank of England.  Google Scholar
  73. Google Trends (2018): Worldwide relative frequency of the search term “fintech”. January 2010 until April 2018.  Google Scholar
  74. Hannan, T. H./Prager, R. A. (1998): The Relaxation of Entry Barriers in the Banking Industry: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Financial Services Research, 14, 3, 171–188.  Google Scholar
  75. He, D./Leckow, R./Haksar, V./Mancini-Griffoli, T./Nigel, J./Kashima, M./Khiaonarong, T./Rochon, C./Tourpe, H. (2017): Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations (IMF Staff Discussion Note), International Monetary Fund.  Google Scholar
  76. Herger, M. (2016): Fintech Regulierung: Punktlandung oder Absturz. Schweizer Bank, 10, 11–12.  Google Scholar
  77. Hölmstrom, B. (1979): Moral Hazard and Observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 1, 74–91.  Google Scholar
  78. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2016): Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS) [Online]. Available: http://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/guidelines-and-circular/2016/20160906e1.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  79. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2018): Fintech Facilitation Office (FFO) [Online]. Available: http://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/fintech-facilitation-office-ffo.shtml [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  80. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2019): Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS) [Online]. Available: https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/fintech-supervisory-sandbox.shtml [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  81. Insurance Authority (2018): Insurtech Corner [Online]. Available: https://www.ia.org.hk/en/aboutus/insurtech_corner.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  82. Jenik, I./Lauer, K. (2017): Regulatory Sandboxes and Financial Inclusion. Working Paper. CGAP.  Google Scholar
  83. Kim, T./Koo, B./Park, M. (2013): Role of financial regulation and innovation in the financial crisis. Journal of Financial Stability, 9, 4, 662–672.  Google Scholar
  84. Kim, Y./Park, Y.-J./Choi, J./Yeon, J. (2016): The Adoption of Mobile Payment Services for “Fintech”. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11, 2, 1058–1061.  Google Scholar
  85. KPMG (2016): The Pulse of Fintech, 2015 in Review.  Google Scholar
  86. KPMG (2017): The Pulse of Fintech Q4 2016.  Google Scholar
  87. KPMG (2018): The Pulse of Fintech Q4 2017.  Google Scholar
  88. Kuo Chuen, D. L./Teo, E. G. S. (2015): Emergence of FinTech and the LASIC principles. The Journal of Financial Perspectives, 24–36.  Google Scholar
  89. Llewellyn, D. (1999): The Economic Rationale for Financial Regulation, London, Financial Services Authority.  Google Scholar
  90. Maume, P. (2017): In Unchartered Territory – Banking Supervision Meets Fintech. CORPORATE FINANCE, 11–12, 373–378.  Google Scholar
  91. Mc Henry, P. (2016a): H. R. 5725. IRS Data Verification Modernization Act of 2016.  Google Scholar
  92. Mc Henry, P. (2016b): H. R. 6118. Financial Services Innovation Act of 2016.  Google Scholar
  93. McAfee, P./Mialon, H. M./Williams, M. A. (2004): What Is a Barrier to Entry? The Ame­rican Economic Review, 94, 2, 461–465.  Google Scholar
  94. McKinsey (2016): The road ahead – Perspectives on German banking.  Google Scholar
  95. Michaels, L./Homer, M. (2018): Regulation and Supervision in a Digital and Inclusive World. In: Chuen, D. L. K./Deng, R. (eds.) Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finane and Inclusion: Cryptocurrency, FinTech, InsurTech and Regulation. Academic Press. An imprint of Elsevier.  Google Scholar
  96. Molyneux, P./Lloyd-Williams, D. M./Thorton, J. (1994): Competitive conditions in European banking. Journal of Banking and Finance, 18, 445–459.  Google Scholar
  97. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016a): FINTECH REGULATORY SANDBOX GUIDELINES, Singapore.  Google Scholar
  98. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016b): FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON MAS FINTECH REGULATORY SANDBOX [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/Smart%20Financial%20Centre/Sandbox/FAQs.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  99. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016c): Response to feedback received – FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines.  Google Scholar
  100. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2018a): MAS sets up new FinTech & Innovation Group [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/news-and-publications/media-releases/2015/mas-sets-up-new-fintech-and-innovation-group.aspx [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  101. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2018b): Setting up your FinTech Business in Singapore [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/Singapore-Financial-Centre/Smart-Financial-Centre/Setting-up-your-Business.aspx [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  102. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2019): Experimenting in the sandbox [Online]. Avail­able: http://www.mas.gov.sg/Singapore-Financial-Centre/Smart-Financial-Centre/FinTech-Regulatory-Sandbox/Experimenting-in-the-sandbox.aspx [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  103. Monetary Authority of Singapore (n/a): MAS FinTech Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/Smart%20Financial%20Centre/Sandbox/Sandbox%20Infographics.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  104. Neuberger, D. (1998): Industrial Organization of Banking: A Review. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5, 1, 97–118.  Google Scholar
  105. OECD (2006): Barriers to entry [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/fr/concurrence/abus/36997651.pdf [Accessed 07.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  106. OECD (2007): Competition and Barriers to Entry [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/competition/mergers/37921908.pdf [Accessed 07.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  107. Oktavianto, D./Muhardianto, I. (2013): Cuckoo Malware Analysis – Analyze malware using Cuckoo Sandbox, Birmingham, Packt Publishing.  Google Scholar
  108. Philippon, T. (2016): The fintech opportunity. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 22476.  Google Scholar
  109. Porter, M. E. (1979): How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 137–145.  Google Scholar
  110. PwC (2017): Global FinTech Report 2017.  Google Scholar
  111. Ringe, W.-G./Ruof, C. (2018): A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice. ILE Working Paper Series, No. 14, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics (ILE), Hamburg.  Google Scholar
  112. Ross, S. A. (1973): The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem. The American Economic Review, 63, 2, 134–139.  Google Scholar
  113. Rothschild, M./Stiglitz, J. (1976): Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 629–649.  Google Scholar
  114. Ryu, H.-S. (2018): Understanding Benefit and Risk Framework of Fintech Adoption: Comparison of Early Adopters and Late Adopters. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2018. 3864–3873.  Google Scholar
  115. Scarpetta, S./Hemmings, P./Tressel, T./Woo, J. (2002): The Role of Policy and Institutions for Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Micro and Industry Data. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 329, 1–63.  Google Scholar
  116. Schindler, J. (2017): FinTech and Financial Innovation: Drivers and Depth. Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-081. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.081,  Google Scholar
  117. Schleussner, A. R. (2017): FinTech und Regulierung – Katalysator oder Hemmstoff? In: Smolinski, R./Gerdes, M./Siejka, M./Bodek, M. C. (eds.) Innovationen und Innovationsmanagement in der Finanzbranche. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.  Google Scholar
  118. Schneider, L. A./Shaul, M./Lascelles, C. K. (2016): Regulatory Priorities for FinTech Firms – and Investors – in the Coming Year. Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, 29, 4, 5–14.  Google Scholar
  119. Scholz-Fröhling, S. (2017): FinTechs und die bankaufsichtsrechtlichen Lizenzpflichten. Zeitschrift für Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 4, 133–139.  Google Scholar
  120. Schueffel, P. (2016): Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech. Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 4, 32–54.  Google Scholar
  121. Securities and Futures Commission (2017a): Circular to announce the SFC Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/circular/openFile?refNo=17EC63 [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  122. Securities and Futures Commission (2017b): SFC Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/sfc-fintech-contact-point/sfc-regulatory-sandbox.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  123. Spiller, P. T./Favaro, E. (1984): The Effects of Entry Regulation on Oligopolistic Interaction: The Uruguayan Banking Sector. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15, 2, 244–254.  Google Scholar
  124. Stigler, G. J. (1968): The organization of industry, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood.  Google Scholar
  125. Treleaven, P. (2015): Financial regulation of FinTech. The Journal of Financial Perspectives, 114–121.  Google Scholar
  126. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (2017): CFTC Launches LabCFTC as Major FinTech Initiative [Online]. Available: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7558-17 [Accessed 11.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  127. Wahbe, R./Lucco, S./Anderson, T. E./Graham, S. L. (1993): Efficient Software-Based Fault Isolation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Operating System Principles, 1993.  Google Scholar
  128. Weizsäcker, C. C. von (1980): A Welfare Analysis of Barriers to Entry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 11, 2, 399–420.  Google Scholar
  129. World Economic Forum (2016): The Complex Regulatory Landscape for FinTech, Geneva.  Google Scholar
  130. Zetzsche, D. A./Buckley, R. P./Barberis, J./Arner, D. (2017): Regulating a Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 23, 31–104.  Google Scholar
  131. Zhao, S. X. B./Zhang, L./Wang, D. T. (2004): Determining factors of the development of a national financial center: the case of China. Geoforum, 35, 5, 577–592.  Google Scholar
  132. Zogning, F. (2017): Comparing Financial Systems around the World: Capital Markets, Legal Systems, and Governance Regimes. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 12, 4, 43–58.  Google Scholar
  133. Accenture (2016): Regulierung von FinTechs: Eine Chance für Banken?  Google Scholar
  134. AGV Banken (2015): No doom and gloom, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  135. Akerlof, G. A. (1970): The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 3, 488–500.  Google Scholar
  136. Alexander, K. (2006): Corporate governance and banks: The role of regulation in reducing the principal-agent problem. Journal of Banking Regulation, 7, 1–2, 17–40.  Google Scholar
  137. Allen, H. J. (2018): A US Regulatory Sandbox? Draft Dated February 8, 2018.  Google Scholar
  138. Arner, D./Barberis, J./Buckley, R. P. (2016): The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47, 1271–1319.  Google Scholar
  139. Arner, D./Barberis, J./Buckley, R. P. (2017): FINTECH AND REGTECH IN A NUTSHELL, AND THE FUTURE IN A SANDBOX, Research Foundation Briefs.  Google Scholar
  140. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017a): Regulatory Guide 257. Testing fintech products and services without holding an AFS or credit licence.  Google Scholar
  141. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017b): Report 523. ASIC’s Innovation Hub and our approach to regulatory technology.  Google Scholar
  142. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2018): Regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/innovation-hub/regulatory-sandbox/[Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  143. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019): Fintech regulatory sandbox – Regulatory sandbox: Licence exemption users [Online]. Available: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/innovation-hub/fintech-regulatory-sandbox/regulatory-sandbox-licence-exemption-users/[Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  144. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (n/a): Licensing exemption for fintech testing [Online]. Available: https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4112096/licensing-exemption-for-fintech-testing-infographic.pdf [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  145. Bain, J. S. (1956): Barriers to new competition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  146. Baker McKenzie (2017): A GUIDE TO REGULATORY FINTECH SANDBOXES ACROSS ASIA PACIFIC.  Google Scholar
  147. Bank for International Settlements (2017): Sound Practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank supervisors (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Consultative Document).  Google Scholar
  148. Barth, J. R./Caprio, G. J./Levine, R. (2004): Bank regulation and supervision: what works best? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13, 205–248.  Google Scholar
  149. Bennett, J./Estrin, S. (2013): Regulatory Barriers and Entry into a New Competitive Industry. Review of Development Economics, 17, 4, 685–698.  Google Scholar
  150. Besanko, D./Thakor, A. V. (1992): Banking deregulation: Allocational consequences of relaxing entry barriers. Journal of Banking and Finance, 16, 5, 909–932.  Google Scholar
  151. Bologna, M. J. (2017): Fed Official Dismisses ‘Regulatory Sandboxes’ for Fintech [Online]. Available: https://www.bna.com/fed-official-dismisses-n57982088022/[Accessed 11.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  152. Brown, J. R./Fazzari, S. M./Petersen, B. C. (2009): Financing Innovation and Growth: Cash Flow, External Equity, and the 1990s R&D Boom. The Journal of Finance, 64, 1, 151–185.  Google Scholar
  153. Brummer, C./Gorfine, D. (2014): FinTech: Building a 21st-Century Regulator’s Toolkit, Center for Financial Markets, Milken Institute.  Google Scholar
  154. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2016): 2015 Jahresbericht der Bundes­anstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.  Google Scholar
  155. Philippon, T. (2016): The fintech opportunity. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 22476.  Google Scholar
  156. Porter, M. E. (1979): How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 137–145.  Google Scholar
  157. PwC (2017): Global FinTech Report 2017.  Google Scholar
  158. Ringe, W.-G./Ruof, C. (2018): A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice. ILE Working Paper Series, No. 14, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics (ILE), Hamburg.  Google Scholar
  159. Ross, S. A. (1973): The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem. The American Economic Review, 63, 2, 134–139.  Google Scholar
  160. Rothschild, M./Stiglitz, J. (1976): Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 629–649.  Google Scholar
  161. Ryu, H.-S. (2018): Understanding Benefit and Risk Framework of Fintech Adoption: Comparison of Early Adopters and Late Adopters. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2018. 3864–3873.  Google Scholar
  162. Scarpetta, S./Hemmings, P./Tressel, T./Woo, J. (2002): The Role of Policy and Institutions for Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Micro and Industry Data. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 329, 1–63.  Google Scholar
  163. Schindler, J. (2017): FinTech and Financial Innovation: Drivers and Depth. Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-081. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.081,  Google Scholar
  164. Schleussner, A. R. (2017): FinTech und Regulierung – Katalysator oder Hemmstoff? In: Smolinski, R./Gerdes, M./Siejka, M./Bodek, M. C. (eds.) Innovationen und Innovationsmanagement in der Finanzbranche. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.  Google Scholar
  165. Schneider, L. A./Shaul, M./Lascelles, C. K. (2016): Regulatory Priorities for FinTech Firms – and Investors – in the Coming Year. Journal of Taxation and Regulation of Financial Institutions, 29, 4, 5–14.  Google Scholar
  166. Scholz-Fröhling, S. (2017): FinTechs und die bankaufsichtsrechtlichen Lizenzpflichten. Zeitschrift für Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 4, 133–139.  Google Scholar
  167. Schueffel, P. (2016): Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech. Journal of Innovation Management, 4, 4, 32–54.  Google Scholar
  168. Securities and Futures Commission (2017a): Circular to announce the SFC Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/circular/openFile?refNo=17EC63 [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  169. Securities and Futures Commission (2017b): SFC Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.sfc.hk/web/EN/sfc-fintech-contact-point/sfc-regulatory-sandbox.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  170. Spiller, P. T./Favaro, E. (1984): The Effects of Entry Regulation on Oligopolistic Interaction: The Uruguayan Banking Sector. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15, 2, 244–254.  Google Scholar
  171. Stigler, G. J. (1968): The organization of industry, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood.  Google Scholar
  172. Treleaven, P. (2015): Financial regulation of FinTech. The Journal of Financial Perspectives, 114–121.  Google Scholar
  173. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (2017): CFTC Launches LabCFTC as Major FinTech Initiative [Online]. Available: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7558-17 [Accessed 11.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  174. Wahbe, R./Lucco, S./Anderson, T. E./Graham, S. L. (1993): Efficient Software-Based Fault Isolation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Operating System Principles, 1993.  Google Scholar
  175. Weizsäcker, C. C. von (1980): A Welfare Analysis of Barriers to Entry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 11, 2, 399–420.  Google Scholar
  176. World Economic Forum (2016): The Complex Regulatory Landscape for FinTech, Geneva.  Google Scholar
  177. Zetzsche, D. A./Buckley, R. P./Barberis, J./Arner, D. (2017): Regulating a Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 23, 31–104.  Google Scholar
  178. Zhao, S. X. B./Zhang, L./Wang, D. T. (2004): Determining factors of the development of a national financial center: the case of China. Geoforum, 35, 5, 577–592.  Google Scholar
  179. Zogning, F. (2017): Comparing Financial Systems around the World: Capital Markets, Legal Systems, and Governance Regimes. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 12, 4, 43–58.  Google Scholar
  180. Oktavianto, D./Muhardianto, I. (2013): Cuckoo Malware Analysis – Analyze malware using Cuckoo Sandbox, Birmingham, Packt Publishing.  Google Scholar
  181. Fest, A. (2008): Zwecke, Ansätze und Effizienz der Regulierung von Banken, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.  Google Scholar
  182. KPMG (2017): The Pulse of Fintech Q4 2016.  Google Scholar
  183. KPMG (2018): The Pulse of Fintech Q4 2017.  Google Scholar
  184. Kuo Chuen, D. L./Teo, E. G. S. (2015): Emergence of FinTech and the LASIC principles. The Journal of Financial Perspectives, 24–36.  Google Scholar
  185. Llewellyn, D. (1999): The Economic Rationale for Financial Regulation, London, Financial Services Authority.  Google Scholar
  186. Maume, P. (2017): In Unchartered Territory – Banking Supervision Meets Fintech. CORPORATE FINANCE, 11–12, 373–378.  Google Scholar
  187. Mc Henry, P. (2016a): H. R. 5725. IRS Data Verification Modernization Act of 2016.  Google Scholar
  188. Mc Henry, P. (2016b): H. R. 6118. Financial Services Innovation Act of 2016.  Google Scholar
  189. McAfee, P./Mialon, H. M./Williams, M. A. (2004): What Is a Barrier to Entry? The Ame­rican Economic Review, 94, 2, 461–465.  Google Scholar
  190. McKinsey (2016): The road ahead – Perspectives on German banking.  Google Scholar
  191. Michaels, L./Homer, M. (2018): Regulation and Supervision in a Digital and Inclusive World. In: Chuen, D. L. K./Deng, R. (eds.) Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finane and Inclusion: Cryptocurrency, FinTech, InsurTech and Regulation. Academic Press. An imprint of Elsevier.  Google Scholar
  192. Molyneux, P./Lloyd-Williams, D. M./Thorton, J. (1994): Competitive conditions in European banking. Journal of Banking and Finance, 18, 445–459.  Google Scholar
  193. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016a): FINTECH REGULATORY SANDBOX GUIDELINES, Singapore.  Google Scholar
  194. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016b): FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON MAS FINTECH REGULATORY SANDBOX [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/Smart%20Financial%20Centre/Sandbox/FAQs.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  195. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016c): Response to feedback received – FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines.  Google Scholar
  196. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2018a): MAS sets up new FinTech & Innovation Group [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/news-and-publications/media-releases/2015/mas-sets-up-new-fintech-and-innovation-group.aspx [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  197. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2018b): Setting up your FinTech Business in Singapore [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/Singapore-Financial-Centre/Smart-Financial-Centre/Setting-up-your-Business.aspx [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  198. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2019): Experimenting in the sandbox [Online]. Avail­able: http://www.mas.gov.sg/Singapore-Financial-Centre/Smart-Financial-Centre/FinTech-Regulatory-Sandbox/Experimenting-in-the-sandbox.aspx [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  199. Monetary Authority of Singapore (n/a): MAS FinTech Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: http://www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/Smart%20Financial%20Centre/Sandbox/Sandbox%20Infographics.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  200. Neuberger, D. (1998): Industrial Organization of Banking: A Review. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5, 1, 97–118.  Google Scholar
  201. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2017): 2016 Jahresbericht der Bundes­anstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.  Google Scholar
  202. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2018a): Aufgaben & Geschichte der BaFin [Online]. Available: https://www.bafin.de/DE/DieBaFin/AufgabenGeschichte/aufgabengeschichte_node.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  203. Clifford Chance (2017): EUROPEAN FINTECH REGULATION – AN OVERVIEW.  Google Scholar
  204. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2013): Policy To Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 209.  Google Scholar
  205. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016a): Policy on No-Action Letters. Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 34.  Google Scholar
  206. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016b): Project Catalyst report: Promoting consumer-friendly innovation.  Google Scholar
  207. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2017): No-action letter, issued to “Upstart Network, Inc.” [Online]. Available: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_upstart-no-action-letter.pdf [Accessed 20.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  208. Deloitte (2014): Digital disruption: Threats and opportunities for retail financial services.  Google Scholar
  209. Deutsche Bundesbank (2018): FinTechs – Finanztechnologie Unternehmen [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Standardartikel/Aufgaben/Bankenaufsicht/fintechs.html [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  210. Dombret, A. R. (2016): Beyond technology – Adequate regulation and oversight in the age of fintechs. In: Banque de France (ed.) Financial stability in the digital era.  Google Scholar
  211. Dorfleitner, G./Hornuf, L./Schmitt, M./Weber, M. (2016): FinTech-Markt in Deutschland. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen.  Google Scholar
  212. Durand, R. B./Tarca, A. (2005): The impact of US GAAP reconciliation requirements on choice of foreign stock exchange for firms from common law and code law countries. European Accounting Review, 14, 4, 789–813.  Google Scholar
  213. Eichengreen, B./Portes, R. (1987): The anatomy of financial crises. NBER Working Paper Series No. 2126, 1–83.  Google Scholar
  214. Ernst & Young (2017a): As FinTech evolves, can financial services innovation be compliant?  Google Scholar
  215. Ernst & Young (2017b): EY FinTech Adoption Index 2017. The rapid emergence of FinTech.  Google Scholar
  216. Ernst & Young (2017c): EY FinTech Australia Census 2017. Profiling and defining the fintech sector.  Google Scholar
  217. European Banking Authority (2018): FinTech: Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs.  Google Scholar
  218. European Central Bank (2014): Guide to Banking Supervision, Frankfurt am Main.  Google Scholar
  219. Ferguson, J. M. (1974): Advertising and Competition: Theory, Mesurement, Act, Bal­linger Publishing Company.  Google Scholar
  220. Financial Conduct Authority (2015a): Call for Input: Regulatory barriers to innovation in digital and mobile solutions [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/call-for-input/call-for-input-regulatory-barriers-to-innovation.pdf [Accessed 15.10.2018].  Google Scholar
  221. Financial Conduct Authority (2015b): Regulatory sandbox.  Google Scholar
  222. Financial Conduct Authority (2017a): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 1 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-1 [Accessed 04.06.2018]  Google Scholar
  223. Financial Conduct Authority (2017b): Regulatory sandbox lessons learned report.  Google Scholar
  224. Financial Conduct Authority (2017c): Sandbox tools [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/sandbox-tools [Accessed 04.06.2018]  Google Scholar
  225. Financial Conduct Authority (2018a): Applying to the regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/prepare-application [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  226. Financial Conduct Authority (2018b): Global sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/global-sandbox [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  227. Financial Conduct Authority (2018c): Regulatory sandbox [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  228. Financial Conduct Authority (2018d): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 2 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-2 [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  229. Financial Conduct Authority (2018e): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 3 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-3 [Accessed 04.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  230. Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (2018b): Die BaFin stellt sich vor [Online]. Available: https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschuere/dl_b_bafin_stellt_sich_vor.pdf;jsessionid=68FB2F7450202BCFA799EC69B992376B.2_cid290?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 [Accessed 11.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  231. Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2017): BMF gründet FinTechRat [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Pressemitteilungen/Finanzpolitik/2017/03/2017-03-22-pm-fintech.html [Accessed 19.10.2018].  Google Scholar
  232. Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2019): Zwei Jahre FinTechRat: Erfolgreicher Dialog zwischen Politik und Praxis [Online]. Available: https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Internationales_Finanzmarkt/2019-03-21-zwei-jahre-fintech-rat.html [Accessed 08.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  233. Carlton, D./Perloff, J. (1994): Modern Industrial Organization, New York.  Google Scholar
  234. Financial Conduct Authority (2019a): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 4 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/regulatory-sandbox-cohort-4-businesses [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  235. Financial Conduct Authority (2019b): Regulatory sandbox – cohort 5 [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-5 [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  236. Christensen, C. M./Raynor, M./McDonald, R. (2015): The big idea: What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93, 12, 44–53.  Google Scholar
  237. Financial Conduct Authority (n/a): Default standards for sandbox testing parameters [Online]. Available: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/default-standards-for-sandbox-testing-parameters.pdf [Accessed 06.06.2018].  Google Scholar
  238. Financial Services Authority (2013): A review of requirements for firms entering into or expanding in the banking sector.  Google Scholar
  239. Financial Stability Board (2017): Financial Stability Implications from FinTech: Super­visory and Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention.  Google Scholar
  240. Fintech Singapore (2017): PolicyPal becomes the First Start-Up to Graduate from the Mas Fintech Regulatory Sandbox [Online]. Available: http://fintechnews.sg/11127/insurtech/policypal-becomes-first-start-graduate-mas-fintech-regulatory-sandbox/[Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  241. FinTechRat (2019): Stellungnahme des FinTechRat zur Blockchain-Strategie der Bundesregierung im Rahmen der öffentlichen Konsultation, Berlin.  Google Scholar
  242. Fisher, F. M. (1979): Diagnosing Monoply. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 671–697.  Google Scholar
  243. Freeman, C. (1995): Innovation and Growth. The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.  Google Scholar
  244. Freixas, X./Santomero, A. M. (2003): An Overall Perspective on Banking Regulation. UPF, Economics and Business Working Paper 664, 1–26.  Google Scholar
  245. Gerlach, C. A./Simmons, R. J./Lam, S. H. (2016): U.S. Regulation of FinTech – Recent Developments and Challenges. The Capco Institute Journal of Financial Transformation, 44, 87–96.  Google Scholar
  246. Gilbert, R. J. (1989): Mobility Barriers and the Value of Incumbency. Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1, 475–535.  Google Scholar
  247. Goldberg, I./Wagner, D./Thomas, R./Brewer, E. (1996): A Secure Environment for Untrusted Helper Applications (Confining the Wily Hacker). Proceedings of the Sixth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, 1996 San Jose, California.  Google Scholar
  248. Gomber, P./Koch, J.-A./Siering, M. (2017): Digital Finance and FinTech: current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics, 87, 5, 537–580.  Google Scholar
  249. Goodhart, C./Hartmann, P./Llewellyn, D. T./Rojas-Suarez, L./Weisbrod, S. (2013): Financial regulation: Why, how and where now?, London and New York, Routledge. Published in association with the Bank of England.  Google Scholar
  250. Google Trends (2018): Worldwide relative frequency of the search term “fintech”. January 2010 until April 2018.  Google Scholar
  251. Hannan, T. H./Prager, R. A. (1998): The Relaxation of Entry Barriers in the Banking Industry: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Financial Services Research, 14, 3, 171–188.  Google Scholar
  252. He, D./Leckow, R./Haksar, V./Mancini-Griffoli, T./Nigel, J./Kashima, M./Khiaonarong, T./Rochon, C./Tourpe, H. (2017): Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations (IMF Staff Discussion Note), International Monetary Fund.  Google Scholar
  253. Herger, M. (2016): Fintech Regulierung: Punktlandung oder Absturz. Schweizer Bank, 10, 11–12.  Google Scholar
  254. Hölmstrom, B. (1979): Moral Hazard and Observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 1, 74–91.  Google Scholar
  255. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2016): Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS) [Online]. Available: http://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/guidelines-and-circular/2016/20160906e1.pdf [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  256. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2018): Fintech Facilitation Office (FFO) [Online]. Available: http://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/fintech-facilitation-office-ffo.shtml [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  257. Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2019): Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS) [Online]. Available: https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/fintech-supervisory-sandbox.shtml [Accessed 10.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  258. Insurance Authority (2018): Insurtech Corner [Online]. Available: https://www.ia.org.hk/en/aboutus/insurtech_corner.html [Accessed 12.07.2018].  Google Scholar
  259. Jenik, I./Lauer, K. (2017): Regulatory Sandboxes and Financial Inclusion. Working Paper. CGAP.  Google Scholar
  260. Kim, T./Koo, B./Park, M. (2013): Role of financial regulation and innovation in the financial crisis. Journal of Financial Stability, 9, 4, 662–672.  Google Scholar
  261. Kim, Y./Park, Y.-J./Choi, J./Yeon, J. (2016): The Adoption of Mobile Payment Services for “Fintech”. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11, 2, 1058–1061.  Google Scholar
  262. KPMG (2016): The Pulse of Fintech, 2015 in Review.  Google Scholar
  263. OECD (2006): Barriers to entry [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/fr/concurrence/abus/36997651.pdf [Accessed 07.05.2019].  Google Scholar
  264. OECD (2007): Competition and Barriers to Entry [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/competition/mergers/37921908.pdf [Accessed 07.05.2019].  Google Scholar

Abstract

Recently, “Financial Technology-companies” (FinTechs) are increasingly changing the financial services industry worldwide and impose considerable challenges for regulators tasked to solve the arising trade-off between sound regulation and innovation support. In this regard, regulatory sandboxes, which were recently introduced in several jurisdictions, provide a promising solution, as they imply a liberalization of regulatory requirements in order to enable FinTechs to test their innovative services. However, we observe that no comparable initiative exists in Germany, even though the German regulator identified a need for action on this subject in order to maintain its international competitiveness. Thus, based on a detailed analysis of various sandbox models worldwide, this paper develops a set of own recommendations as a basis for the implementation of a sandbox concept which might be applicable in the German regulatory environment. In doing so, we identify current theoretical as well as practical regulatory issues within the context of the rapid FinTech evolution. To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents the first study on key international sandboxes as a basis to design guidelines specifically for the German financial market. Thereby, we contribute to the literature as we evolve an effective regulation within the new setting of innovative financial technologies. Moreover, our findings contribute to the practical solution of current challenges faced by both regulators and affected companies. Even though our derived implications focus on the German financial sector, the results may potentially be applicable in further jurisdictions with similar regulatory requirements.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Johannes M. Gerlach / Daniel Rugilo: The Predicament of FinTechs in the Environment of Traditional Banking Sector Regulation – An Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes as a Possible Solution 1
Abstract 1
I. Introduction 2
II. Theoretical Background and Definitions 4
1. Digital Finance and FinTech 4
2. Developments and Major Representative FinTech Markets Worldwide 5
3. Resulting Regulatory Predicaments 8
4. Regulatory Requirements of FinTech Business Models 9
5. Regulatory Sandbox as Potential Solution 1
III. Analysis of Regulatory Sandboxes 1
1. Regulatory Sandbox: UK 1
2. Regulatory Sandbox: Australia 1
3. Regulatory Sandbox: Singapore 1
4. Regulatory Sandbox: Hong Kong 2
5. Regulatory Sandbox: US 2
IV. Proposal of a Regulatory Sandbox Concept for Germany 2
V. Conclusion 2
References 4

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.