Either regulate Big Tech's entry into finance now, or regret it later

After the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the public discourse has been brimming with hindsight advice on what regulators and lawmakers have missed. Yet nobody is talking about a major trend that is injecting future risk into the financial system: Big Tech's entry into banking. Dangers are growing exponentially with the rise of decentralized finance (DeFi), but defining what tech titans should be allowed to do is tricky.

Over the last years tech giants have been racing toward financial services. Apple, Alphabet (Google's parent company), Amazon and Meta (Facebook's parent company) have all leaped into the payments market. Some partner with licensed banks to offer credit, while Amazon has even entered the corporate lending business. In perhaps the most ambitious initiative yet, Facebook led a group of corporations that attempted to issue a global super-currency far away from the reach of central banks. And though it eventually failed, there are already new plans to run money in the metaverse.

If you wonder how deep Big Tech can get into banking look to China. WeChat Pay and Alipay have long since dethroned credit card schemes and other incumbents. Alibaba's interest-bearing micro-savings tool Yu'e Bao became the world's largest money market fund in 2019. Tencent runs a licensed virtual bank together with traditional finance players. Examples abound.

Most of these forays went hand in hand with crucial innovation such as mobile payments or the proliferation of open banking. They slashed costs for consumers, boosted financial inclusion and enhanced usability. Yet these advances are also fraught with dangers.

Data privacy is a big one. Monopolistic tendencies are another. These are issues hotly debated by politicians across the globe, but what often goes unnoticed is the systemic risk Big Tech's entry injects into the financial system.

The International Monetary Fund, the Financial Stability Board and the Bank for International Settlements have all warned of the ensuing cross-sectoral, cross-border risks. Laws are not yet ready to let tech tycoons control the arteries of the global economy. And as the age of decentralized finance unfurls, the dangers are put under a magnifying glass.

While projects such as Apple or Google Pay were confined to one layer, the triumphal march of blockchain technology and digital assets lets Big Tech compete on the level of assets, settlements, gateways and applications. Facebook's aforementioned digital currency, called Libra, is a case in point. Had it been successful, Facebook would have had a say in the issuance of the asset, the blockchain on which settlement occurred and the wallet by which users manage their money.

Digital assets are no isolated space anymore. Increasingly, real-life assets are merging with on-chain ones. This interconnectedness means that contagion can easily spread from the unregulated DeFi space to the traditional financial system.

Tech titans are already at the brink of turning into shadow banks. And if they are honest about achieving their visions, say of building the metaverse, then they will inevitably have to put their weight behind DeFi as well.

So how does all this trickle down to concrete policies? The first thing is to put competition on an equal footing, allowing technology giants, banks and fintechs to compete fairly in all areas of tomorrow's world of finance. Laws cannot block one group from tinkering with crypto assets while giving another free rein. On- and off-chain assets will melt together, whether regulators like it or not. It is better to pen the rules early on than to sleepwalk into an inevitable future.

Unfortunately, some lawmakers are sprinting in the opposite direction. Rather than bringing the increasing DeFi activity onto regulated turf, they want to bar banks from even touching digital assets, hence leaving it to unregulated entities including Big Tech. But there is more to do.

Breaking up tech titans, as some politicians suggest, is not a viable option. Neither is banning them from financial services. Legislation such as the Keep Big Tech out of Finance Act would rob the banking sector of much-welcome innovation and competition. Yet while data giants are innovation powerhouses, they must not enjoy preferential treatment and they must not pile up risks unnoticed. The balancing act can only succeed if today's approach of activity-based regulation yields to an entity-based one. It is not sufficient that tech titans must solely abide by isolated rules that govern, for example, payments or selling insurance. Due to their clout, tech goliaths must be designated as critical infrastructure providers and as such be regulated on the corporate level just like traditional banks, who have to abide by rules on capital requirements, corporate governance and reporting, as well as numerous restrictions on activities and exposures.

Furthermore, entity-based regulation impacts a company's risk calculation. If regulated entities break the rules, they face losing
the license to operate, not simply fines. "We're sorry and we're working on a solution" should not be an acceptable answer for companies dealing with data security and most certainly not for those managing money. Hence, activity-based rules can only be a supplement, not a substitute, for regulating systemically important organizations.

There will be those who argue that technology giants still make up a comparably small fraction of the financial system, yet we have seen that Big Tech is silent about its ambitions all the way up to a big bang announcement. Think Libra or Apple Pay. Due to their unparalleled consumer access, financial resources and technological know-how, these forays can upend a market overnight. And due to Big Tech's nature of global and cross-industry operations this risk could spread through the world economy like a wildfire. Regulators and lawmakers would do well to act before another crisis ensues.