Introduction

Real-time payments (RTP) are an increasingly popular means by which individuals can send credits from one account to another. Many banks have established internal RTP systems and, in some countries, these have been extended to other banks through private consortia such as The Clearing House in the United States. Such consortia enable someone with an account at Chase, for example, to send money to someone with an account at Wells Fargo, and vice versa, using their RTP apps.[1]

In other countries, central banks have inhibited the establishment of private RTP networks and have developed their own systems. One such example is Brazil, where the Banco Central do Brasil (“BCB”) has operated the Pix instant-payment system since 2020.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the Basel-based organization that sets regulatory standards for central banks, recently published a paper examining Pix that was co-authored by two researchers from the BCB and three from the BIS.[2] This brief offers some initial thoughts on that BIS paper and on the Pix system more generally.

We begin with a discussion of the economics of payment networks, with an emphasis on the optimal distribution of costs and benefits. Section II addresses cost transparency and apportionment in payment systems run by central banks. Section III critiques several mistaken notions regarding the role of rewards in payment-card networks. Section IV illustrates the conflicts of interest that can arise when a governmental entity such as a central bank competes with the private sector. Section V discusses the inter-related problems of data breaches, inadequate know-your-customer procedures among some Pix-implementing entities, and the phenomenon of “lightning kidnappings.” Section VI compares the operational rules governing the BCB with international good governance. Section VII concludes with a discussion of the wider lessons for governments considering the implementation of RTP systems.

Read the full issue brief here.

[1] RTP Network Participating Financial Institutions, The Clearing House, https://www.theclearinghouse.org/payment-systems/rtp/rtp-participating-financial-institutions (last visited May 18, 2022).

[2] Angelo Duarte et al., Central Banks, the Monetary System and Public Payment Infrastructures: Lessons from Brazil’s Pix, BIS Bulletin no. 52 (Mar. 23, 2022), at 1.

Abstract

If a company misbehaves, lawsuits are one way of providing a remedy and encouraging that company and others to behave in the future. If the misbehavior is securities fraud, there are two potential plaintiffs—traders allegedly injured by the fraud may bring a private suit, and the government (through the SEC or DOJ) may sue to enforce the public interest in truthful disclosures of corporate information. If the misbehavior is violations of corporate governance rules, however, only private suits are available. Despite the parallel rationales for marrying private and public attorneys general, the toolkit for protecting the public interest in corporate governance is not as well stocked. This essay imagines what a government cause of action might look like for alleged corporate governance wrongdoing. Many of the pathologies of current corporate governance litigation may be ameliorated by a state-based, public cause of action for breaches of fiduciary duty. Although not without downsides, putting Delaware’s Corporate Governance Police on the beat may improve the governance of American companies, while reducing the amount of vexatious litigation.

Executive Summary

In 2020, the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica passed Legislative Decree 9831, which granted the Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR) authority to regulate payment-card fees. BCCR subsequently developed a regulation that set maximum fees for acquiring and issuing banks, which came into force Nov. 24, 2020. In BCCR’s November 2021 ordinary review of those price controls, the central bank set out a framework to limit further the fees charged on domestic cards and to introduce limits on fees charged on foreign cards.

This brief considers the international experience with interchange and acquisition fees, reviewing both theoretical and empirical evidence. It finds that international best practices require that payment networks be considered dynamic two-sided markets, and therefore, that assessments account for the effects of regulation on both sides of the market: merchants and consumers. In contrast, BCCR’s analysis focuses primarily on static costs that affect merchants, with little attention to the effects on consumers, let alone the dynamic effects. Consequently, BCCR’s proposed maximum interchange and acquisition fees would interfere with the efficient operation of the payment-card market in ways that are likely to harm consumers. Specifically, losses by issuing and acquiring banks are likely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher banking and card fees, and less investment in improvements. Less wealthy consumers are likely to be hit hardest.

Based on the evidence available, international best practices entail:

• As far as possible, allowing the market to determine interchange fees and acquisition fees;
• Acknowledging that payment networks are two-sided markets in which one side (usually merchants) typically subsidizes the other side, thereby increasing system effectiveness;
• Not benchmarking fees, especially against countries that have price controls in place; and
• Not imposing price controls on fees on foreign cards.

Read the full issue brief here.

Introduction

The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) is grateful for the opportunity to submit these comments in support of FTX’s application to amend its DCO registration to allow it to clear margined products directly for retail participants.

The vast majority (some 96%[1]) of global crypto derivatives trading takes place outside the U.S., much of it on platforms operating non-intermediated retail models similar to that proposed in FTX’s application—but with one crucial difference: these offshore exchanges are largely unregulated. The reason for the disparity in domestic vs. foreign trading volumes is clear: regulatory constraints and costs in the U.S. make the operation of such platforms impossible or unviable. FTX’s proposal would pave the way to bring the technology and business models currently employed to facilitate virtually the entirety of the world’s crypto derivatives trading into the regulated structure of U.S. derivatives markets. The only thing standing in the way is the possible inflexibility of that regulatory structure in the face of disruptive competition.

The obvious market benefits of FTX’s proposal are that:

1. It would free capital that would otherwise be pledged as collateral, which could greatly expand liquidity in crypto markets or could be deployed elsewhere in the financial system;
2. It would introduce a competitive alternative to the current exchanges, thus providing investors savings on what they would otherwise pay in commissions, account origination fees, etc.; and
3. It would offer clear product differentiation: e.g., by introducing a new mechanism for counterparty risk mitigation and by offering direct access to retail investors (with inherently lower costs of participation, more and cheaper information, and technological enhancements like a direct-access mobile interface).

The latter two of these benefits (and to some extent even the first) go particularly to the enhancement of competition in U.S. derivatives markets.

Concerns that markets lack sufficient competition are at the forefront of current policy debates. Legislators are currently working on draft bills that seek to promote competition in digital markets, and President Biden recently issued an executive order advocating for a “whole of government” approach to competition.[2]

Unfortunately, the renewed focus on how governments may boost competition has a significant blindside when it comes to government-created barriers to competition. Rather than offering a solution, government regulations are all too often the cause of reduced competition. This is notably the case when regulation artificially narrows a market by preventing new and innovative firms from disrupting entrenched incumbents.

In other words, if the “whole-of-government” approach to promoting competition means anything, it means that regulatory agencies should work to remove state-created, artificial barriers to market entry that are not absolutely required to accomplish core regulatory functions. The CFTC has precisely that opportunity with FTX’s application.

The market for crypto (and many other) derivatives is currently a lucrative duopoly, dominated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). Both firms have long been shielded from robust competition by a protective, if well-intentioned, moat of government regulation. The CFTC now has a unique opportunity to open this duopoly to disruptive competition.

FTX’s application would bring both technological and business-model innovation to the derivatives market, carrying with them the promise of increased competition, reduced risk, more efficient pricing, and lower costs for investors. There is always reluctance to embrace the new, particularly in areas that deal so intrinsically with risk. But a sensible measure of caution must not be allowed to morph into costly intransigence.

FTX’s application, while ambitious in its aims, is, in fact, quite modest in its mechanisms. It is respectful of the existing, overarching regulatory paradigm implemented to protect consumers, investors, and the financial system as a whole; it contemplates significant protections and backstops to shore up any increased risk it might introduce; and it ensures that ongoing oversight by the CFTC is readily facilitated.

Indeed, approval of FTX’s application would not entail the abandonment of the CFTC’s core principles, but merely a recognition that the specific implementation of those principles may not be optimal for certain novel business models and technology. As Chairman Benham recently remarked:

[T]he digital asset market would benefit from uniform imposition of requirements focused on ensuring certain core principles, including market integrity, customer protection, and market stability. At the CFTC, we have seen that a regulatory regime focused on core principles can be successful in overseeing a wide variety of markets, and have no reason to think those same principles cannot be applied to digital asset markets.[3]

In short, the CFTC should jump at this opportunity to introduce some well-regulated experimentation into the derivatives market: the likely social benefits of this effort significantly outweigh the potential harms.

Read the full comments here.

[1] See, e.g., Philip Stafford, Crypto industry makes push into regulated derivatives markets, FINANCIAL TIMES (Feb. 21, 2022), https://www.ft.com/content/364dee59-fb51-400b-acd2-808d4ec41ab3.

[2] Executive Order 14036 on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, § 2(g) (Jul. 9, 2021) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition- inthe-american-economy (“This order recognizes that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.”).

[3] CFTC Chairman Rostin Behnam, Letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and House Committee on Agriculture (Feb. 8, 2022) at 4, available at https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2022%2002%2008%20Ag%20committees%20digital%20asset%20res ponse%20letter.pdf.

Abstract

This paper looks at consumer complaints about student loan lenders and servicers from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) consumer complaint database. Using a novel dataset drawn from 30,678 complaints filed against 212 student loan companies, we analyze consumers’ subjective views about whether traditional or fintech student loan lenders and servicers provide a better customer experience. Overall, we find that consumers initiate far fewer complaints against fintech lenders than traditional lenders. But we find that fintech lenders are twenty-eight times more likely than traditional lenders to receive complaints for making confusing or misleading advertisements. Our data also show that complaints against fintech lenders or servicers have not risen in parallel with greater loan volume by those firms, despite the rising number of complaints being filed against traditional lenders and servicers, as those firms continue to dominate the market share of student loan lending and servicing. We consider various reasons for this difference, including whether this means fintech student loan companies are providing a better consumer experience.

Abstract

Early in his career, Milton Friedman proposed a coordinated rules-based approach to monetary and fiscal policy, which he then abandoned for a simple constant money growth rule. Both rules were motivated by his goal of long-run economic stability and his belief that discretionary policy would be destabilizing. What prompted Friedman to change his view was his interpretation of empirical evidence showing that monetary policy dominates fiscal policy in determining macroeconomic outcomes, rendering fiscal policy ineffective.

ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann joined the Heard Tell Show to discuss Elon Musk’s bid to buy Twitter, shareholder rights, platform moderation, and regulatory review of the transaction. The full episode is embedded below.

 

Abstract

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has begun to use sanctions against people who speak out against its policies, including even lawyers in their ordinary work representing the interests of their clients. This paper explores the deleterious impact such sanctions can have on the entire legal profession, the broader community putatively served by the profession, and the rule of law.

Abstract

The institution of bankruptcy law seeks to facilitate economic efficiency by enabling the reorganization of economically viable but financially distressed firms and facilitating the liquidation of economically failed firms. Does the U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy process perform this filtering function efficiently? Using data from large public bankruptcies between 1981-2010, we find that it does not. Specifically, (1) evidence on matched performance differences between bankrupt firms and industry counterparts indicate that there is no improvement in the performance gap between bankrupt firms and industry right before and after bankruptcy, and, (2) firms emerging from bankruptcy do not exhibit financial performance catch-up behavior to their going concern industry counterparts. In addition, we find (3) judicial bias in favor of reorganization in cases involving firms with more employees and operations closer to the judge’s district, suggesting that bankruptcy judges respond to social-political considerations, when deciding whether to reorganize the firm.