海外之声丨荷兰央行原行长：技术进步对银行的影响
导读
技术进步不仅影响银行等提供金融服务的机构，而且也会影响央行以及监管机构。金融行业以及行业监管者应当如何应对金融科技公司已经成了十分重要的问题。就银行而言，第一个问题是现在已经成立的数千家金融科技公司是否会削弱传统银行模式，抑或是被纳入银行体系之中。
日渐消失的竞争优势
银行的一大优势是他们与客户的密切关系。银行的很大一部分服务被看作是一种公共产品，业务受到高度监管，并不受外界竞争的影响。客户从中获得了对银行的信心，但银行也在某种程度上忘记了他们对客户的主要关注。这一点在金融危机期间尤为明显。因此愤怒的客户在寻找金融服务的替代供应商（金融科技公司）和替代货币（加密货币）。在传统银行市场地位削弱的同时，大型科技公司的实力不断增强。如今，七大科技公司的总市值已经超过最大的200家银行。科技公司从互联网的各个角落获取新客户，新冠疫情更加增强了这一趋势。对于银行来说，最佳的解决方案就是与金融科技公司既合作又竞争，当然，实现合作与竞争的平衡又是一个相对微妙的过程。
适者生存
银行现在使用的软件和系统框架都已经过时，维护复杂的系统配置花费巨大。但是如果能把数据应用传到云端，其运营成本将会极大地降低。金融服务尚不发达的国家在应用新科技方面有较大的起步优势。对传统银行系统的威胁主要在于支付系统和直接相关的服务。作为大型科技公司活动的一部分，金融技术正在不断推进。中西方互联网巨头都急于跳入支付系统，以及保险、资金管理和信贷领域。整个支付系统领域正在迅速变化。正是新技术和不断变化的消费者偏好的结合，推动了金融业的转型进程，带来了一个更具包容性的金融体系。想要保持活力的银行必须有一个全面的数据战略，并且必须从基于IT的银行业务转向智能银行，使用人工智能来尽可能多地满足其客户的愿望。
监管政策
大型科技公司是创新的重要源泉，但是创新不应破坏金融系统的稳定性、威胁隐私、破坏公平竞争的环境。金融科技给金融领域带来了积极影响，并且已经让银行业意识到要更好地服务客户群体以及提升工作效率。大多数央行开始开发作为法币的数字货币，并且致力于制定国际通行的规则。监管机构在这方面和央行的角色有些重合，后者主要关注于币值的稳定、支付系统的效率以及金融系统的稳定，而前者更加关注个体金融机构的诚信。科技公司面临的问题要比金融机构还要多，包括消费者保护、隐私、垄断行为、数据监管等问题。欧盟在2021年9月公布了一项立法提案，旨在将 "关键的ICT第三方供应商"，包括云服务提供商，纳入监管范围，以加强金融部门和其中个别公司的运营复原力。这是向前迈出的重要一步，因为它将大型科技公司的某些 "关键 "活动置于某种直接监督之下。这是一个不可避免的举措，对受监管的金融部门以外的金融服务提供商的监管从基于活动到基于实体。
展望未来
大科技公司提升了效率、使金融更加包容。但问题是，他们是否足够重视解决时代的重大问题，如气候、医疗、基础设施等。如果我们不希望他们不受控制地统治世界，就应该采取一些措施。中美欧都已经在潜在的反竞争和金融稳定问题中密切审查大科技公司，并引入立法来解决这些问题。一些重要的领域需要跨国合作。共同的问题只能一起解决，政府应该带头创造一个公平的竞争环境。既不能盲目地信任私营部门，也不能损害他们为解决当前巨大挑战作出贡献的能力。
作者 | Nout Wellink，IMI国际顾问委员、荷兰央行原行长
英文原文如下：
The Impact of Technological Developments on Banks
Nout Wellink, Member of IMI International Committee; Former Governor, The Netherlands Bank
Introduction
Technological developments not only affect banks and other institutions delivering financial services (such as insurance companies), but also central banks and regulators/supervisors. An important issue is how the financial sector and the authorities operating in this sector should deal with fintech/big tech companies. The meteoric rise of these companies raises also broader and more fundamental issues as to their role and position in our societies.
Focusing on banks, the first question that arises is whether the several thousands of fintech companies that have now been established will ultimately undermine the business model of traditional banks or whether these companies will be absorbed by the banking system. Many small fintech companies will eventually fail. They may not develop enough scale or are not able to mobilize enough financial resources to pose a real threat to the banking system. Life is not easy for these newcomers to the financial sector. Under existing legislation, they must comply with all legal conditions that are imposed on banks. That means, for example, that they must meet all requirements for the gatekeeper function regarding money laundering. These requirements are financially very heavy for a small company (high compliance costs). That is why these companies are often absorbed by banks, who thus try and make the innovative strength of the fintech’s part of their business.
We are indeed seeing more and more mergers and partnerships between established financial institutions and fintech startups, but these are not always happy marriages. The integration of a fintech startup into a traditional bank is less simple than is often thought, partly because of cultural and management differences. These “marriages” are, therefore, regularly followed by a divorce.
The real competition for the banking industry doesn’t come from small independent fintech companies, but from the explosively growing internet giants. There will be, of course, exceptions, because small companies can become big by operating very successfully or by merging with other fintech companies. As of the beginning of this year the number of unicorns fintech’s (companies with a valuation over $ 1 billion) is still relatively limited. Therefore, the focus in the following is on the (very) large, technologically advanced companies, with a wide range of activities, that increasingly also provide financial services.Disappearing competitive advantages
A major strength of banks was their close relationship with the customer. Since a large part of the services of banks is seen as a public good, their business ishighly regulated and protected from outside competition. Consumers derive confidence in the banks from this, but it made banks cost-inefficient. They also had somewhat forgotten their primary focus on the customer. That became abundantly clear during the financial crisis. Angry consumers looked for alternative providers of financial services (fintech companies) and alternative money (crypto currencies). Technological developments contributed in many countries to an increasing erosion of the close relationship between banks and their individual customers too. In the past, in financially developed countries large banks had a dense network of local branches and, in addition, there were also many small banks that were close to the citizen. Forced by competition and made possible by new technologies, banks in these countries had started to shrink their network. At the same time, many smaller banks had merged into larger ones.
While the market position of traditional banks relatively weakened (there are of course always exemptions), big tech companies gained in strength. At this moment the cumulative market cap of the seven “biggest techs” is already much larger than of the top 200 (highly regulated) banks. That was different a few years ago, for various reasons. Big Techs operate in many fields, getting information about their customers from all corners of the internet. The core of the fintech approach is to understand what the customer wants and to deploy technological solutions to fulfill these wishes. Therefore, Big Techs exploit to the fullest, in a cost-efficient way, their large data files with artificial intelligence. The corona crisis has given a strong, further boost to technology firms, but undoubtedly also their improved performance and more active involvement in financial services have played a role. Big banks have large data files too, but these are less diversified. In addition, banks not always realize the value of their data and are also more restricted in the use of them. Unlike the banks had become, big tech companies are very customer-oriented, sometimes operate on or beyond what is legally permissible, and they are less hindered by regulations.
For banks, part of the answer to these developments was entering into partnerships not only with small fintech’s, as mentioned above, but also with these big tech companies. This is kind of a two-edged sword. Already as early as 2016 the World Economic Forum warned that these partnerships also carry risks. Banks could become too dependent on Big Techs; their fees could come under pressure, and they could also lose much of their own identity because of the strong(er) brand of the big tech company. For banks, finding the right balance between cooperation and competition is a very delicate process.Survival of the fittest
Bill Gates proclaimed as early as 1994 that: "banks are dinosaurs, (...). We can bypass them." For the banks today, as I once read, the task is "how to make the dinosaurs run”. In any case, banks need to get rid of the IT legacy of the past. Much of the banking industry still struggles with outdated mainframes andsoftware. The maintenance of the old IT configuration (often with different program languages and machines) is complex and costs a lot of money. Unfortunately, this also applies to the transfer of data and applications to the cloud. But once all that has happened, the costs will drop significantly. The transition to new systems is not only a question of money, but often also, technically, extremely complex because of "spaghetti connections": everything is interlinked. These are all reasons why the introduction of new technologies can be faster in financially less advanced countries. These countries can start from scratch.
The threat to the traditional banking system lies primarily in the payment system and directly related services. That threat has now become even greater for technologically lagging banks, because the corona crisis has given a significant, further impulse to digital and contactless payments. Fintech, defined as innovative digital technology solutions aimed at optimizing financial services and banking, is advancing mercilessly as part of the activities of big tech companies. Not only in China, but also internet giants in the West are eager to jump into the payment system, and in insurance, money management and lending. The entire payment system field is changing rapidly. Bad luck for those small banks that - often supported by politics - want to focus as much as possible on the utility function (payment, saving and safe investment). Without full swing innovating and digitalizing, this utility function eludes them, and the so cherished security of these banks will eventually turn out to be a bad dream.
The threat from the fintech angle extends to the entire package of banking activities. This is what see happening now. In some countries, such as China (Alibaba, Tencent) but also in the US (Google, Apple) this development is more advanced than in others. It is the combination of new technologies and changing consumer preferences that is driving the transformation process in the financial sector. An important corollary of these developments is that, thanks to the new business models that are emerging, a much more inclusive financial system is emerging.
If the fintech approach, which is taking hold in many areas of the banking business, continues - and there is no reason to suppose that it should not - only the business model of the bank, which is also a sufficiently advanced high-tech company, will have in the somewhat further future still life chances. Banks that want to remain viable must have an encompassing data strategy and will have to move from just IT-based banking (the simple use of computers) to smart banking. They will have to use artificial intelligence to fulfill as many (of the continuously changing) wishes of its customers as possible, not only doing things better and faster than in the past but also and especially by product innovation (e.g. products that consumers believe will improve their financial health). All these developments require new organizational models for banks as well as a different kind of workforce. "Adapt or die," writes Brett King in his fascinating book “Bank 4.0”. The ability to adapt a bank’s organization is a condition of life.Policies of the authorities
Innovation should not be nipped in the bud and big tech is an important source of innovation. But it should also not endanger the stability of the financial system, threaten privacy and undermine the necessary level playing field in the economy. Fintech has had a positive impact on the financial sector, as it has shaken up the banking sector and made this sector aware of the need to better serve the customer and to work more efficiently. Because of the easy profits that could be made in the past, banks kind of forgot about that.
Life was perhaps too easy for central banks too. The banknote monopoly, their monetary policy instruments, their formal and informal command over the banks and their authority more generally had made them a bit sleepy. In addition, many central banks in countries with well-developed payments systems initially remained rather skeptical (some of them still are) about the value added of an official digital currency. Fortunately, the mood at the majority of central banks has changed. Facebook’s Libra-initiative (Facebook has nearly 3 billion monthly users) has undoubtedly been instrumental in this regard. Most central banks are now working hard to develop a digital currency that is also legal tender and, therefore, has a competitive advantage over cryptos. They realize that current technological developments can hit the heart of their activities. Hopefully, central banks will combine forces and also work on common, international standards.
China is well ahead of most other central banks with the development of its digital currency and is already in the pilot stage. The US Fed is still evaluating whether to launch a digital currency, but the ECB officially launched in July 2021 its digital euro project, because it wants to protect its monetary sovereignty and to preserve its citizens’ access to central bank money in case cash would disappear. But it will be years before there is a digital euro.
While providing an official alternative, central banks and regulators worldwide should also regulate (or ban altogether) cryptocurrencies and stable(value)coins. Stablecoins suggest more stability and safety than they can actually deliver, due to insufficient and/or illiquid reserves to serve as a backing. A chaotic situation is developing with respect to cryptos. Cryptocurrencies, “created by the people and for the people” as the slogan goes - there are now around 12.000 of them - can infect the financial system the moment the crypto- and the official money circuits come into contact. Crypto’s facilitate criminal payments, their production is extremely energy intensive, they may be prone to runs and do not offer any protection to unsuspected owners. The Chinese central bank recently stated that all transactions related to crypto’s – also those provided by foreign platforms to Chinese residents – are illegal, which I believe is completely justified. An alternative for banning them completely would be to try and bring them under existing regulation regarding banks and/or securities.
Financial regulators/supervisors have their own role to play, but there are, of course, overlapping fields of activity with central banks. While central banks mainly focus on the integrity of the value of money (price stability), the efficiency of the payments system and the stability of the financial system, the attention of financial regulators is primarily focused on the health and integrity of individual financial institutions. But the problem of the big techs is broader than the financial sector. There are also issues related to consumer protection, privacy, monopolistic practices, data governance (ownership, collection, storage), etc. In fact, a strategy that encompasses all these aspects is necessary. Regarding banking supervision, a great deal of harmonization has taken place internationally. As to the other aspects mentioned, international views often differ quite a bit and national solutions, therefore, also differ. Authorities should try and work on harmonization of these aspects too.
Big Tech companies operate with the help of existing infrastructures or via systems proprietary to them. This is a stylized representation of reality. In practice, these models overlap. In the first approach the tech firm is a third party, for which the bank bears responsibility and supervision is entirely conducted through the bank. In the second approach supervision on the financial activities is activity based, but much more complex because of opaque governance structures.
Developments now are moving at an almost lightning speed, for example regarding the role of technology companies in bringing online banking to the cloud. China has four rapidly growing cloud giants, and they are instrumental in the upgrading of the traditional industries, including the financial sector. This a welcome development. The cloud approach is very efficient, but what if a cloud company runs into problems? Then banks, and perhaps also the financial system, will get into big trouble. Therefore, the risks involved in reliance on third parties (in this context big tech companies) for very essential services, have become a major concern for supervisors. No wonder that the EU – other jurisdictions are moving into the same direction - has published in September 2021 a legislative proposal aimed at bringing “critical ICT third party providers”, including cloud service providers, within the regulatory perimeter, so as to strengthen the operational resilience of the financial sector and of the individual firms within it. This is an important step forwards, because it brings certain “critical” activities of the big techs under kind of direct supervision. This is an inevitable move, seen also in other jurisdictions, from activity based to entity-based supervision on providers of financial services outside the regulated financial sector. That said, banks remain, of course, responsible for their control environment.
Even more complex is finding a solution for a big tech company that operates in many areas, including financial ones, via its own systems. Technological developments make it easier – via Application Programming Interfaces – to embed banking services into any product a tech company wants to sell. To cometo grips with such a company and to create a situation in which their financial services can be regulated and supervised adequately, a transparent structure is a necessary condition, whereby on the one hand banking activities are separated as much as possible from other services and on the other hand efficiency gains and consumer preferences must be taken into account. An interesting example is the restructuring of Ant’s Alipay. This restructuring not only addresses typically financial sector issues, but also competition- and data governance issues (ownership, access, privacy, usage). The approach regarding data governance has China specific characteristics. The user data, collected via super-app Alipay, will be turned over to a partly state-owned joint venture. This joint venture will apply for a consumer credit scoring license and future lending decisions by Alipay will be based on data from this credit scoring firm. This is in line with the policy of the central bank that credit decisions should be based on data from approved credit scoring companies.A closing remark of a general nature
Big Tech companies bring efficiency gains and (financial) inclusion. But the question remains to what extent they distort fair competition, misuse data and can be trusted to serve the public interest. Do they focus sufficiently enoughy on solving the major issues of our time, such as the climate, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Nowadays, in many countries essential parts of the critical infrastructure (including the financial sector) are in the hands of the private sector, often without sufficient supervision and without regulation that adequately protects the interests of the society.
If we do not want Big Techs to rule the world unchecked, something should be done. Internationally, not only in China but also in the US and Europe, the authorities have become more active by closely scrutinizing Big Tech amid potential anti-competitive and financial stability concerns and by introducing legislation to address these concerns. These policies are an important step in the right direction, but only part of the solution. There is also a need tostrengthen the position of those operating the public interest. Various solutions are conceivable here. I will just mention one.
In the past, governments were often the driving force for technological innovations. The internet originated in the defense world and the spin-offs of the race to the moon has been enormous: NASA identified more than 2000 of them since 1976. Today, this innovation role seems to be taken over in many countries by Big Techs and its leaders who are nowadays sending rockets into space. Their companies derive their dominant position from the collection and analysis, with artificial intelligence, of huge data files. This immediately points to a direction in which important progress could be made. If the public sector is to compete with the Big Techs, it must encourage data sharing, for example between scientists, within a country and cross-border, and therefore create national and internationalresearch clouds that allow academics and others to access massive, public datasets. Recently, interesting initiatives in this area have been taken in the US. Legislation in that country requires a federal task force be established “to study and provide an implementation pathway to create world-class computational resources and robust government datasets by researchers across the country in the form of a National Research Cloud”. This kind of initiatives are a useful, positive response to the growing power of the Big Techs. They strengthen the position of those who primarily work in the public interest and don’t weaken the innovation capacity of others.
These initiatives should not remain just national endeavors. There are important areas where a cross-border approach would be helpful and/or urgently needed. Health, for example, is one such area. Research data on health should be seen as a global public good. I am fully aware of all the complications involved, especially with respect to privacy and security. The stronger the privacy legislation in a specific country, the more difficult it becomes to share information, especially cross-border. A good example is EU’s General Data Protection Regulation” that collides with legislation in other jurisdictions in which privacy issues are regulated differently. Security considerations are also a good example. The fewer countries trust each other, all the less they are inclined to exchange information on security grounds. But that said, there are many cross- border areas for which a (perhaps not perfect) solution must be sought and can be found. A positive example is the COVID-19 Data Exchange platform that acts as a trusted third party and in which all kind of guarantees are built in to comply with existing national regulations.
Common problems can only be solved together. In doing so, public authorities should take the lead, create a level playing field and not blindly trust on the private sector, of course without impairing the capacity of that sector to contribute to the solution of the enormous challenges in front of us.
编译 刘文桐、李尧政
编辑 刘嘉璐
责编 李锦璇、蒋旭
监制 朱霜霜、董熙君
点击查看近期热文
欢迎加入群聊
为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。
入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。
欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。
关于我们
中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。
研究所长期聚焦国际金融、货币银行、宏观经济、金融监管、金融科技、地方金融等领域，定期举办国际货币论坛、货币金融（青年）圆桌会议、大金融思想沙龙、麦金农大讲坛、陶湘国际金融讲堂、IMF经济展望报告发布会、金融科技公开课等高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《天府金融指数报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《宏观经济月度分析报告》等一大批具有重要理论和政策影响力的学术成果。
2018年，研究所荣获中国人民大学优秀院属研究机构奖，在182家参评机构中排名第一；在《智库大数据报告（2018）》中获评A等级，在参评的1065个中国智库中排名前5%。2019年，入选智库头条号指数（前50名），成为第一象限28家智库之一。
国际货币网：http://www.imi.ruc.edu.cn
微信号：IMI财经观察
（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）
理事单位申请、
学术研究和会议合作
联系方式:
只分享最有价值的财经视点
We only share the most valuable financial insights.