21 October 2014

neilburton

Neil Burton - Self

19 | posts 82,976 | views 48 | comments

Payments strategies 2015-2020-2030

Payments systems visions, strategies, trends, pilots, forecasting, and planning for the short-, medium-, and far-term.

The USA’s PSD, aka Dodd Frank 1073 pt 2

04 February 2014  |  1788 views  |  0

The US Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) has issued a Proposed Rule which would bring larger US-based nonbank participants of the international money transfer market  within the CFPB's supervisory jurisdiction. The Proposed Rule is available here and is open for comment until 1 April 2014.

The Rule proposes that providers transacting more than 1m aggregate annual international money transfers will come within the CFPB's supervisory authority. There are about 25 such firms.

Market demographics

According to the CFPB's estimates, approximately 340 nonbanks provide international money transfers, accounting for roughly $50 billion transferred and 150 million individual transfers in 2012. Their data is extrapolated from providers licensed in California, New York, or Ohio; most entities that provide over 500,000 international money transfers per year are licensed in at least one of those three States.

The top 25 international money transfer providers collectively processed about 140 million transfers in 2012, with a total aggregate transaction value of about $40 billion, approximately 90 percent of the nonbank international money transfers.

Costs of supervision

The CFPB assumes that the typical examination would require 10 weeks of staff time, based on  extrapolating its experience of supervising nonbank payday lender examinations as a reasonable proxy for international money transfer provider examinations.

The CSPB does not comment as to how many firms it may examine each year, nor how many times it may do so per year; nor does it say whether firms which are regulated and supervised in another jurisdiction (for example European based providers who fall under the broadly comparable regulatory jurisdiction of the EC Payments Services Directive) may require more, or less, scrutiny.

Is it necessary, transparent, sustainable proportionate…?

And all the other good tests against which regulations should be evaluated. Is there evidence of bad behaviour by the nonbank providers, or quantified and material increase in financial risk? DFS1073 was clearly intended to benefit the US consumer; will this build on that? No doubt someone will add a comment and let me know.

TagsPaymentsRisk & regulation

Comments: (0)

Comment on this story (membership required)
Log in to receive notifications when someone posts a comment

Latest posts from Neil

Will block supersede stack?

25 September 2014  |  1958 views  |  1  |  Recommends 2 TagsVirtual currencyPaymentsGroupPayments strategies 2015-2020-2030

The USA’s PSD, aka Dodd Frank 1073 pt 2

04 February 2014  |  1788 views  |  0  |  Recommends 0 TagsPaymentsRisk & regulationGroupPayments strategies 2015-2020-2030

'Mobile payments' is meaningless

10 October 2013  |  5110 views  |  0  |  Recommends 1 TagsMobile & onlinePaymentsGroupPayments strategies 2015-2020-2030

Approaching Sibos 2013

11 September 2013  |  4145 views  |  0  |  Recommends 1 TagsPaymentsSibosGroupPayments strategies 2015-2020-2030
name

Neil Burton

job title

Consultant

company name

Self

member since

2012

location

London

Summary profile See full profile »

Neil's expertise

What Neil reads
Neil writes about

Who is commenting on Neil's posts

Ketharaman Swaminathan