大数据分析在金融科技监管中的应用：预测与影响

需积分: 10 129 浏览量更新于2024-07-09 收藏 697KB PDF 举报

"这篇研究论文探讨了预期金融科技监管的重要性，特别是在大数据分析的背景下，如何预测金融科技的发展方向、影响以及实施有效的控制措施。金融技术（FinTech）已经渗透到现代商业和国家安全的关键领域，如初创金融、支付系统、交易平台、风险管理等。文章指出，大数据分析在金融科技的创新激励、市场失灵的证据收集以及公共政策制定中起到关键作用。金融科技的快速发展带来了一系列挑战，如设计缺陷、不透明性、社会成本的外部化以及监管滞后问题。一些FinTech公司可能利用监管漏洞，导致新出现的金融科技公司在缺乏适当监管的情况下运营。这引发了金融市场监管的传统问题，以及金融科技知识产权（IP）带来的系统性成本。此外，随着金融科技在关键基础设施中的核心地位，它也带来了国家安全风险。论文的作者John W. Bagby和David Reitter强调了利用大数据分析来预测和管理这些风险的必要性。他们认为，通过大数据分析可以更好地理解金融科技对市场的影响，预测潜在的市场失灵，并为公共政策制定提供依据。这包括对金融科技创新的激励机制进行分析，以便在鼓励创新的同时防止不良后果；使用大数据来揭示和修复市场失灵，以维护市场的公平性和稳定性；以及借助数据分析制定适应性的公共政策，以应对金融科技发展带来的新挑战。在实际应用中，预期金融科技监管可以通过以下方式发挥作用： 1. **创新监管**：通过大数据分析监控金融科技行业的创新趋势，确保新产品的推出既符合法规要求，又能推动行业发展。 2. **市场监控**：运用大数据工具实时监测市场动态，及时发现并预防市场失灵，保护消费者权益。 3. **风险评估**：通过大数据对金融科技的风险进行量化评估，提前预警潜在风险，提高金融机构的风险管理水平。 4. **政策制定**：基于大数据分析的结果，政策制定者可以更准确地了解金融科技的影响，制定出更为精确和前瞻性的监管政策。 5. **国际合作**：在全球化的金融科技环境中，各国可以共享大数据分析成果，共同应对跨国监管挑战。这篇论文呼吁对金融科技采取前瞻性的监管策略，结合大数据分析的力量，以促进金融科技的健康发展，同时防范其可能带来的风险。这样的监管模式将有助于构建更加稳健、公正且适应性强的金融市场，保障金融系统的稳定性和国家的安全。"

Anticipatory FinTech Regulation using Big Data

Bagby & Reitter

of big data, and 4

- apparent usefulness of predictions

made thereon.

It is argued here that nearly all past and present FinTech innovations

eventually triggered a deluge of new and more complete data. New

FinTechs required novel techniques to recognize where and how to capture

that data, new communications methods were enabled to transmit the data,

new storage methods developed to warehouse and organize the data for

useful retrieval, and new analytics are tried and tested for validity of the

meaning derived therefrom. In the next section, many FinTechs are

evaluated in hindsight for their contribution to financial services viewed

through the big data analytics lens.

Tracing FinTech through Four Eras

After the pre-FinTech era of ancient through medieval times, we divide

FinTech into three modern eras that follow three major technological

watersheds: first, electrical analog telecommunications, second,

computerized recordkeeping, and third, fusion of these first two into ICT

deployed or under development in the current era. The impact of FinTech,

developed throughout the 20

Century, is spurred significantly by

innovations and ubiquity of telecommunications and computational power.

FinTech’s second stage, the first of the modern era, roughly tracks

industrial capitalism. Much of FinTech innovation was based on analog

electronic communications developed in the 19

century - telegraphy and

telephony. These twin innovations spurred significant FinTechs by

improving communications that have extended well into in the 20

century.

Near instantaneous electronic communications made financial markets and

services accessible from/to across the U.S. and around the world. Major

financial markets

were enabled to more permanently coalesce into a few of

See, Bagby, John W., Big Data ITS, LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN PREDICTIVE DATA

ANALYTICS, at 3, Indiana University - Bloomington, April 15, 2015.

The breadth of classification of financial markets continues to be a vague endeavor, with

securities and commodities markets predominating in the modern scholarship of financial

economics, central and commercial banking predominating in monetary economics and

world trade scholarship, and insurance largely relegated as the niche of traditional risk

management and risk transfer. The U.S. predominates in the world’s scholarship of

financial markets, likely due to its general lower investment risk, see e.g., Jorion, Philippe

& William N. Goetzmann, Global Stock Markets in the Twentieth Century, 54 J.FIN. 953-

980 (Jun. 1999) accessible at: http://viking.som.yale.edu/jorion_goetzmann.pdf (arguing

predominant focus on U.S. equity markets ignores other world markets possibly due to the

return premium available in U.S. markets derived from its perceived stability). Such

generalizations risk dogmatic rigidity of these “silos,” although they are probably

inevitable even as the world indulges more in universal banking. Nevertheless, these

distinctions are enduring leaving some challenges in expounding an integrated

understanding of FinTech’s place among all financial services, see also, Moore, L., World

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3456844

Anticipatory FinTech Regulation using Big Data

Bagby & Reitter

the world’s moret influential developing venues, including, New York,

London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and others.

FinTech’s second

modern era began to transition by the 1970s as computer recordkeeping

finally invaded the “back office” of insurance, commercial and investment

banking. Computerization also permitted statistical risk analyses, important

in risk underwriting and financial analysis. This era also witnessed the

development of electronic order processing, program trading, electronic

corporate democracy, and electronic financial disclosure. As FinTech’s pace

quickened into its third stage, at the turn of the 21

Century, the major

influences are ICT, big data and AI. These technologies permit algorithmic

trading strategies, cryptocurrencies, and blockchain recordkeeping and

smart (automated) contracting.

Ontology of FinTechs from a Chronological Litany

A provisional chronology of FinTech from the pre-FinTech

ancient/medieval era, through U.S. history in the 19

and 20

century, to the

post-war modern era, and ultimately to the modern FinTech period provides

an opportunity to trace FinTech’s technological development history. This

analysis also marks key transformative change points and their disruptive

challenges to FinTech public policy.

Other scholars have proposed

typologies, some casting them as FinTech business models. For example,

Lee and Shin argue that current and proposed FinTechs should be divided

into six discrete business models: (1) payments, (2) wealth management, (3)

Financial Markets, 1900-1925, (Univ.Melbourne, 2012) accessible at:

http://lyndonmoore.yolasite.com/resources/World%20Financial%20Markets.pdf (arguing

that London dominated in the early 20

century as New York rapidly grew) and Chambers,

David & Elroy Dimson (eds.), FINANCIAL MARKET HISTORY: REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST

FOR INVESTORS TODAY (CFA Inst. Res. Found. 2016) accessible at:

https://www.trendfollowing.com/whitepaper/FINANCIAL_MARKET_HISTORY.pdf

The authors clearly risk condemnation over any thoughtless omission or attempt to rank

order this list.

Some may argue this type of historical analysis, can serve purposes no greater than as a

descriptive retrospective, making it of limited usefulness to resolve unexpected future

problems. So why bother doing this? What insights are possible? What can this effort

prove? Indeed, this paper can hardly provide an exhaustively comprehensive list, some

important watersheds will inevitably be missing, the alleged watersheds are not rank

ordered and ranking would be unlikely to achieve consensus. We anticipate this cogent pre-

critique by demonstrating some predictive value infra. See He, Dong, Ross B Leckow,

Vikram Haksar, Tommaso Mancini Griffoli, Nigel Jenkinson, Mikari Kashima, Tanai

Khiaonarong, Celine Rochon, Hervé Tourpe, FinTech and Financial Services : Initial

Considerations, INT’L.MONIT.FUND. Staff Discussion Notes No. 17/05 (June 19, 2017) at 8

accessible at: https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn1705.ashx

(arguing a visual chronology of financial service technical innovation watersheds

intuitively illustrates the accelerated pace of change that FinTechs produce).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3456844

Anticipatory FinTech Regulation using Big Data

Bagby & Reitter

crowdfunding, (4) lending, (5) capital markets, and (6) insurance.

They

predict FinTech will face the greatest challenges in the areas of investment

management, customer management, regulation, technology integration,

security and privacy, and risk management.

The Partial FinTech

Chronology depicted in Figure I, illustrates the difficulty of taxonomy

development, given an accelerated pace of technological change.

Figure I: a Partial FinTech Chronology

The First FinTech Era: Pre-Industrial Origination

From ancient times to the industrial revolution, financial technologies

developed slowly, often spurred by conflict and in relation to religious

activities. At the time of these FinTechs were introduction, each was

capable of producing big data for that time. Considering the difficulties in

recording, storage, communicating and analyzing data using technologies of

the era, FinTechs created what becamr big data of that time in history. Most

FinTechs originally developed during this period persist in some form today

and continue to be big data driven. Much of the ancient FinTech successes

developed in ancient Greece and Rome, with the Crusades, and the rise of

mercantilism also influential. Stabilization of the enduring FinTechs was

guided by a few, large nation states, particularly imperialist nations of

Lee, In, & Yong Jae Shin, FinTech: Ecosystem, Business Models, Investment Decisions,

and Challenges, 61 Bus.Horizons 35-46 (2018) accessible at: http://iranarze.ir/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/E10696-IranArze.pdf

Id. at 36.

Source: He, Dong, Ross B Leckow, Vikram Haksar, Tommaso Mancini Griffoli, Nigel

Jenkinson, Mikari Kashima, Tanai Khiaonarong, Celine Rochon, Hervé Tourpe, FinTech

and Financial Services: Initial Considerations, INT’L.MONIT.FUND. Staff Discussion Notes

No. 17/05 (June 19, 2017) Fig. I at 8, accessible at:

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn1705.ashx

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3456844

剩余58页未读，继续阅读

weixin_38694800

粉丝: 4
资源: 1021

大数据分析在金融科技监管中的应用：预测与影响

20201120-中信证券-金融科技行业：金融科技创新发展研究报告之数据要素与金融科技创新.rar

金融科技对金融监管的影响-研究论文

金融科技和监管科技：在保持金融稳定的同时实现创新-研究论文

金融科技学分：实证研究文献的批判性回顾-研究论文

技术诉技术官僚：金融科技作为监管挑战-研究论文

嵌入式监管：如何将监管纳入区块链金融-研究论文

数据市场纪律：从金融监管到数据治理-研究论文

金融科技和监管科技简而言之，沙盒中的未来-研究论文

零披露监管科技：通过对企业电子邮件和新闻的语言分析来检测风险-研究论文

更多相同或真正的转型：金融科技是否需要新的监管？-研究论文

最新资源