/regulation & compliance

News and resources on regulation, compliance, legal and governance issues for banks and fintechs.

Tony Craddock: FCA’s ‘Dear CEO letter likely to destabilise the e-money sector’

In a ‘Dear CEO’ Letter sent out by the FCA yesterday, the regulator called on UK electronic money institutions (EMIs) to ensure their customers understand how their money is protected.

  1 11 comments

Tony Craddock: FCA’s ‘Dear CEO letter likely to destabilise the e-money sector’

Editorial

This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community.

The regulator expressed concern that many e-money firms compare their services to traditional bank accounts or hold themselves out as an alternative in their financial promotions, but don’t adequately disclose the differences in protections between e-money accounts and bank accounts.

Specifically, the Letter raised the differences in relation the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), stating that “we are still concerned that many e-money firms are not adequately disclosing the differences in protections between their services and traditional banking.”

The FCA states that EMIs must write to their customers within six weeks (by end June 2021) to remind them of how their money is protected through safeguarding, and, that the FSCS does not apply. It specifies further that this communication is to be separate from any other messaging or promotional activity.

In response, Tony Craddock, director general of the Emerging Payments Association, posted on LinkedIn that “this Dear CEO Letter is likely to destabilise the e-money sector. Two steps forward, one step back for the emerging payments sector. Such a shame.”

“I like to be upbeat about our progressive relationship with the FCA, our regulator. But sometimes they let down the emerging payments sector. Their Dear CEO letter sent today to all EMIs is 'asking them to write to your customers to make it clear how their money is protected' seems to be largely a backward step.”

Craddock furthered that this obligation will require time, cost and effort for the EMIs, “who know their customers are holding less than £85,000 in their e-wallets - the amount above which their balances would not be protected in the case of a corporate failure. Most cardholders, will probably hold less than £85 in their wallets.”

“Such a move is likely to scare small customers away from cost-effective, flexible and secure prepaid accounts in a time of communal pandemic-induced fear, and make more confident customers with higher balances question whether to use such an account. In reality, when a bank receives £100 from a customer, £90 of it is lent out to another customer, leaving only £10 left. EMIs, on the other hand, have to keep 100% of this £100 in a secure, safeguarded account, and can't lend it out.

Alison Donnelly, payments regulation specialist, director of fscom, advisory board member of The Fintech Corridor, and director at the APCC, added to the post that while she would never argue against providing clear information to consumers, “the value of the work the FCA is doing now to hold payments and e-money institutions to account for their safeguarding arrangements and what they write about themselves on their websites and elsewhere is far more valuable that this unprompted email that is likely to be ignored or possibly cause panic.”

The FCA added that the Letter is in line with its intent to address any weaknesses and risks in the key areas of payments and e-money, given their potential to harm consumers - particularly in light of the economic impact of Covid-19. “Given the growth of the payment services and e-money sector, we noted the risk that consumers may not understand how their money is protected and the difference compared to sectors they may be more familiar with, such as banking.”

The Letter also follows an announcement by the FCA earlier this month which set out plans for a new Consumer Duty, to set a higher level of consumer in retail financial markets for firms to adhere to.

Sponsored [Webinar] Money Mule Defence: Practical Applications and the Role of Technology

Comments: (11)

Melvin Haskins

Melvin Haskins Managing Director at Haston International Limited

I am at a loss to understand Mr. Craddock's comments. Of course the EMIs need to ensure that their customers understand how their money is protected and it is also very important that they know and understand that they are not protected by the Financial Services Protection Scheme. What scheme are they protected by?

Ray Wilson

Ray Wilson Global Head of VAM at Montran

I think that whilst it was obvious to all professionals in this sector that E-Money Licenced businsses cannot offer FSCS protection, it is fair to point out that some of their reatil customers may not and this should of course be made clear to them. The big question however, is why not include them in the scheme or a watered down version thereof. This would allow a very important sector to move towards the gold standard. Ray

A Finextra member 

"What a shame" - What an ass.

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith Founding CTO at RTGS & ClearBank

I think its imperative that customers understand how their money is protected and where it actually is.

e-money may well have to "secure and segregate" account funds, and they cannot lend them, however, the bank the e-money institution uses to hold these funds may, and more often than not, will lend them.

This is another reason why e-money institutions need to select the right agency bank provider.

 

A Finextra member 

I suspect this action from the FCA is an exercise in managing their own risks.

Tony points out correctly that consumer funds with EMIs are 100% safeguarded, while those with credit institutions are dependent on the solvency of the institution, hence is why they need FSCS insurance.

However, safeguarding is dependent on the integrity of the EMI and its processes, which the FCA has the (difficult) task of policing.

The Wirecard situation last year showed safeguarding works perfectly well (although as pointed out in the FCA letter, there can be delays in getting refunded, which caused stress and issues for the consumers and fintechs affected).

If Wirecard had resulted in losses from safeguarded funds then the outcome for UK consumers would have been very different, and the FCA's supervision would have been called into question (as happened with LCF).

Generally, I expect that most consumers have no idea whether their funds are insured or safeguarded, they just trust they are safe. Probably many consumers will bin their letter without reading it, but I suspect the main message is to remind EMIs, rather bluntly, of their safeguarding obligations, while giving themselves some cover if an EMI goes rogue in the future.

Given that safeguarding has been shown to work, EMIs can at least be thankful they only need to write a letter rather than deal with a slew of new regulation.

Ray Wilson

Ray Wilson Global Head of VAM at Montran

Maybe I am wrong but 100% safeguarded? Explain? 

Melvin Haskins

Melvin Haskins Managing Director at Haston International Limited

What happens if the EMI files for bankrupcy? How are the consumer funds 100% protected?

A Finextra member 

when an EMI issues e-money (eg on a prepaid card) it has to keep the same value of funds in a bank account (or appropriate liquid securities) separate to bank accounts the EMI uses for its operations. These are safeguarded funds that can be used for no purpose other than backing £ for £ the e-money issued. In an insolvency, the claims of the holders of e-money are met ahead of any other creditors. Since e-money is 100% backed by safeguarded funds, then the claims should be met in full. EMIs can choose to insure the full value of the e-money they issue as an alternative, but the result is the same.

Melvin Haskins

Melvin Haskins Managing Director at Haston International Limited

The unidentified member defending EMIs does not allow for the EMI lying about where the money is (as in the case of Wirecard). Insurers do not pay out when a fraud is identified.

Ray Wilson

Ray Wilson Global Head of VAM at Montran

Melvin is correct. Whilst the money should be in safeguarded funds there is no protection against mal-administration or Fraud. Therefore they are not 100% protected as is the case with the FSCS (albeit with a cap). This is exaclty the point the FSCS is making. So the result is not the same. If a bank goes bust the FSCS pays out, if an EMI goes bust and the funds that should have been there are not, you lose out.

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith Founding CTO at RTGS & ClearBank

Just to add, if a bank goes bust and has EMI funds on its books, these are treated as bankers funds. This then leaves the EMI without the funds even though it maybe still solvent. Insurance is the only fail-safe at this point. 

[Webinar] Operational Resilience in the age of DORAFinextra Promoted[Webinar] Operational Resilience in the age of DORA