-
Without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau setting specific debt collection guidelines including what technology agencies can use the industry will continue a practice that harms consumers: lawsuits.
June 8 -
Banks are enthusiastic about innovation that involves both traditional institutions and nonbanks, but a more cohesive regulatory landscape is needed for cooperation between banks and fintech to grow even more.
February 18
Earlier this month, I represented my debt-recovery startup at the fintech
It is refreshing to see the government so open to learning more about what drives innovation and how the public sector can help push innovation forward. Conferences such as the White House summit are helpful in exposing both private companies and regulators to new fintech ideas as well as generally opening the lines of communication.
But it's also clear that we are still in the very early stages of the government-innovator conversation.
The government is not a single entity. It is made up of multiple agencies, policy teams and other bodies. Each have their own ideas and own agenda, which are sometimes conflicting, about the aspects of innovation to promote and those that trigger concerns.
For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission all have varying views of fintech. They also have very different rulemaking responsibilities and are on different timelines, not to mention varying levels of interfacing with the industry. Just as varied are different fintech market players in terms of their openness to regulation.
The early engagement between the government and fintech companies poses the question: What can we do better?
First, there needs to be a more formal model for engaging with government agencies. The CFPB is leading this charge with
A great first step would be for all agencies that engage with startups to have forums similar to the CFPB's. Making these forums work is a two-way street: As important as it is for the government to establish a line of communication, startups must use those channels to educate regulators about their work, in addition to learning about the issues of importance to policymakers. And this is a responsibility that should fall to the startup's CEO. It cannot be neglected or left to a government relations person. Engagement should come early and it should be structured.
Number two, define goals for these engagements. Is there an upcoming regulation that should guide the discussions? Is the regulator soliciting feedback from the industry that can influence the regulatory policy, or in need of qualitative as well as quantitative information from the industry? Data obtained by the government from fintech companies can help strengthen rules. Regulators may be able to use these engagements to test new policy concepts on specific startups to create blueprints for policy moving forward.
These meetings can also help industry players prepare to comply with an upcoming rule. Startups are in the business of adapting to their market, and getting this guidance from the regulator will allow them to conform.
Finally, these meetings should provide a venue for innovators to hone the experimentation process for new products and ideas by sharing those ideas with policymakers. This is another point that was mentioned in the conference and it is extremely important. The CFPB is again leading the charge by experimentation via Project Catalyst and providing a framework for
There is a lot of opportunity in the government-startup bond. It can lead to the birth of new industries and new playbooks. As the White House fintech summit participants articulated, finding the right interfaces and methods to do so is critical.
Ohad Samet is a co-founder and chief executive of the debt-recovery company TrueAccord. Follow him on Twitter