By
Stanley Epstein As the recent financial crisis begins to fade from memory we are starting to see behaviors in the world of financial innovation reverting to old methods and practices. Is it a good thing? Perhaps…
However, misunderstood financial innovations such as securitization, which led to the financial crisis through the sub-prime debacle in the United States, pose an ever present danger to the financial industry. Regulators and supervisors everywhere, as guardians of the various components of the world’s financial system, do still not clearly understand the implications of financial innovation. Often too this is clouded by public policies which as the basis for such oversight are suspect as to which “public” they are intended to benefit. This is especially the case in the uses of technology in the provision of financial services.
The word “innovate” means to bring in novelties or to make changes. Financial innovation extends this simple definition to the financial world. However, here the simplicity ends with a plethora of products, processes and methods that have been applied to the spectrum of the financial world – some good and some bad.
What drives financial innovation? Simply put – self interest, which finds expression through Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Financial institutions seek out, through the innovative process, the most efficient cost effective way to maximise their profits either on existing products or potential new ones.
There are two basic drivers of financial innovation which result from the barriers that a bank faces in reaching its financial goals – competition and regulation. To beat these barriers banks engage in completion of two sorts – competitive or circumventive. The first is pretty obvious as all banks seek to maximise their profits and they do this by competing with other players in the market.
The second, circumventive, is a little bit more obscure. In all jurisdictions financial firms are faced by a plethora of rules and regulations, imposed by the banking and regulatory authorities on how they conduct their business. These are the regulatory barriers that a bank faces. These barriers may often be overcome by innovation – hence the term “circumventive innovation”.
The classic illustration of this is the development of the humble Automated Telling Machine (ATM) which was introduced first in the United States as a circumventive innovation, to get past retractions on branch banking. The idea was quickly picked up, first in Europe, and then globally as a competitive innovation. European banks had no restrictions on the number of branches they could have but labour policies created limitations on for example working hours among many other issues. In the ATM the European banks found a new “staff member” who (1) was cheaper than a human teller, (2) could work all day and night, (3) was accurate, (4) did not need a physical branch to support it. There were many other plusses a well, not to mention the ability to widely expand the range of products and services that could be offered.
In essence, one type of innovation (circumventive) morphed into another (competitive). This interaction goes on constantly and is a key feature of the dynamics of a constantly evolving financial system. And technology has been a leading driver of this process. We see this in action all the time in many different ways.
So, what is the message to bank regulators, supervisors and their policy makers? Well put simply “financial innovation or its implications are not always clearly understood”. These facts are critical to bank supervisors and regulators because innovative actions on behalf of the financial industry are not always benign or made for the general good. Equally so, public policy makers need to understand why some financial innovations take place and review their policies in the light of this. Very often restrictive practices are created for the wrong reasons – protection against genuine competition is often disguised as consumer protection.
