國立虎尾科技大學 |

Regulating FinTech : = The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Regulating FinTech :/
其他題名:	The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.
其他題名:	FinTech reguleren :
作者:	Peng, Kuan-Jung.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (424 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-02B.
標題:	Finance. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798380120128

Regulating FinTech : = The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.
Peng, Kuan-Jung.

Regulating FinTech :The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.FinTech reguleren :De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie. - 1 online resource (424 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Universitaet Hamburg (Germany), 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

FinTech (financial technology, ''FinTech'') is a double-edged sword as it brings both benefits and risks. The potential risks, specifically, may merit regulatory attention. This study found that information deficits might arise. This study appraised FinTech's technological nature that brings changes in complexity in modern financial markets to identify the information deficits and its undesirable outcomes. Financial crimes such as fraud, cheating, and money laundering exemplify them. Besides, as FinTech is still developing, the information regarding, for instance, whether and how to apply regulation to these new products, services or players may be insufficient for both regulators and those regulated. More one-size-fits-all regulation might accordingly be adopted, thereby being unable to distinguish between the safer and riskier FinTech. Through the lens of both law and economics and law and technology, this study further found that the root cause of the aforementioned problems is the pacing issue. Regulation cannot keep pace with technology. To solve this issue, this study suggested AFR (adaptive financial regulation, ''AFR'') of FinTech. AFR features its dynamic nature, enabling regulatory adjustments and learning through truly experimenting. Exploring and collecting information through experiments and learning from experiments are the core of AFR. FinTech regulatory sandboxes, which have been existing in countries, epitomize AFR. This study chose Taiwan as a case study. This study found that the barriers to adaptive and effective FinTech regulation such as sandboxes tend to happen with respect to the entry into, operation of, and formulation of sandboxes. Unduly emphasizing consumer protection and the innovation entry criterion by improperly imposing limits on the entry into sandboxes, ignoring post-sandbox mechanisms, and relying on detailed, specific and prescriptive rules to formulate sandboxes are examples. In addition, interest groups' influence and regulators' attitude were also found to be barriers to adaptive and effective FinTech regulation. To solve these barriers except for the interest groups' influence and regulators' attitude, this study proposed several solutions by looking into the experiences in other jurisdictions and analyzing several experimental cases. First, striking a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring financial stability and consumer protection is indispensable. Several consumer protection measures after entering the sandboxes were recommended instead of the ex-ante limitation on sandboxes' accessibility. Second, entry to sandboxes should be facilitated by improving the selection criteria. This study suggested that an innovation criterion may not be a necessity. Third, adhering to realizing regulatory adjustment and learning to adapt regulation to technology, this study argued that systematic post sandbox mechanisms should be established. Regulatory adjustments are achievable through such mechanisms. Those regulated could also be incentivized to provide information on the expectation of the subsequent lighter regulations benefiting them. Fourth, this study recommended "more principles-based sandboxes". Principles rather than rules should be the base on which sandboxes or FinTech regulation are established. Having principles could provide more flexibility, being easier to adjust and adapt, and better at avoiding obsolescence. Interpreting principles that are with a lower degree of specificity may be more costly than interpreting rules. However, the higher interpretation costs should be considered together with the increase or decrease of other types of costs such as the decrease of revising costs in the case of obsolescence and hence the decrease of obsolescence costs.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798380120128Subjects--Topical Terms:

559073
Finance.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Regulating FinTech : = The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.
LDR:05211ntm a22003617 4500 001 1143181
005 20240513060816.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798380120128
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30683697
035 $a (MiAaPQ)Hamburg10243
035 $a AAI30683697
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Peng, Kuan-Jung. $3 1467791
245 1 0 $a Regulating FinTech : $b The Perspectives of Law, Economics, and Technology = FinTech reguleren : De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.
246 3 1 $a FinTech reguleren : $b De perspectieven van recht, economie en technologie.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (424 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-02, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Faure, Michael G.;Oded, Sharon.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Universitaet Hamburg (Germany), 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a FinTech (financial technology, ''FinTech'') is a double-edged sword as it brings both benefits and risks. The potential risks, specifically, may merit regulatory attention. This study found that information deficits might arise. This study appraised FinTech's technological nature that brings changes in complexity in modern financial markets to identify the information deficits and its undesirable outcomes. Financial crimes such as fraud, cheating, and money laundering exemplify them. Besides, as FinTech is still developing, the information regarding, for instance, whether and how to apply regulation to these new products, services or players may be insufficient for both regulators and those regulated. More one-size-fits-all regulation might accordingly be adopted, thereby being unable to distinguish between the safer and riskier FinTech. Through the lens of both law and economics and law and technology, this study further found that the root cause of the aforementioned problems is the pacing issue. Regulation cannot keep pace with technology. To solve this issue, this study suggested AFR (adaptive financial regulation, ''AFR'') of FinTech. AFR features its dynamic nature, enabling regulatory adjustments and learning through truly experimenting. Exploring and collecting information through experiments and learning from experiments are the core of AFR. FinTech regulatory sandboxes, which have been existing in countries, epitomize AFR. This study chose Taiwan as a case study. This study found that the barriers to adaptive and effective FinTech regulation such as sandboxes tend to happen with respect to the entry into, operation of, and formulation of sandboxes. Unduly emphasizing consumer protection and the innovation entry criterion by improperly imposing limits on the entry into sandboxes, ignoring post-sandbox mechanisms, and relying on detailed, specific and prescriptive rules to formulate sandboxes are examples. In addition, interest groups' influence and regulators' attitude were also found to be barriers to adaptive and effective FinTech regulation. To solve these barriers except for the interest groups' influence and regulators' attitude, this study proposed several solutions by looking into the experiences in other jurisdictions and analyzing several experimental cases. First, striking a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring financial stability and consumer protection is indispensable. Several consumer protection measures after entering the sandboxes were recommended instead of the ex-ante limitation on sandboxes' accessibility. Second, entry to sandboxes should be facilitated by improving the selection criteria. This study suggested that an innovation criterion may not be a necessity. Third, adhering to realizing regulatory adjustment and learning to adapt regulation to technology, this study argued that systematic post sandbox mechanisms should be established. Regulatory adjustments are achievable through such mechanisms. Those regulated could also be incentivized to provide information on the expectation of the subsequent lighter regulations benefiting them. Fourth, this study recommended "more principles-based sandboxes". Principles rather than rules should be the base on which sandboxes or FinTech regulation are established. Having principles could provide more flexibility, being easier to adjust and adapt, and better at avoiding obsolescence. Interpreting principles that are with a lower degree of specificity may be more costly than interpreting rules. However, the higher interpretation costs should be considered together with the increase or decrease of other types of costs such as the decrease of revising costs in the case of obsolescence and hence the decrease of obsolescence costs.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Finance. $3 559073
650 4 $a Information technology. $3 559429
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Regulatory reform. $3 1467792
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0489
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0508
710 2 $a Universitaet Hamburg (Germany). $3 1465333
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-02B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30683697 $z click for full text (PQDT)