1 / 22

De instelling voor elektronisch geld Wat staat ons te wachten ?

De instelling voor elektronisch geld Wat staat ons te wachten ?. 11 Juni 2002. Programme. Welcome Market and regulatory developments E-money in the UK: suggestions Tea break / Thee pauze Toelichting op Nederlandse wetgeving Wetgeving in de praktijk Vereniging 1.1a2.

tress
Download Presentation

De instelling voor elektronisch geld Wat staat ons te wachten ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. De instelling voor elektronisch geldWat staat ons te wachten? 11 Juni 2002

  2. De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  3. Programme Welcome • Market and regulatory developments • E-money in the UK: suggestions Tea break / Thee pauze • Toelichting op Nederlandse wetgeving • Wetgeving in de praktijk • Vereniging 1.1a2 De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  4. De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  5. Market and regulatory developmentsHow did we get here? 11 Juni 2002

  6. De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  7. Outline • Introduction • How did we get here? • Main players • Chronological overview of developments • Some remarks De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  8. Introduction • Business Administration (1989) • Postbank (1990-1995) • De Nederlandsche Bank (1995 - june 2001) • S. Lelieveldt Consultancy (july 2001 - ) • research ePSO project European Commission • report with Electronic Commerce Platform • workshops NIBE/SVV on e-payments • consultancy (e-Back, Privver etc) De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  9. How did we get here? • Legislation on e-money as a result of interaction between: market developments: • chipcard, internet-money, mobile telephony and regulatory responses: • local regulators, European Central Bank, European Commission De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  10. Main players • Large retailers (Shell, Ahold, Telco) • Postbank (former postal giro) • Bankgiro banks (ABN AMRO, RABO) • Small and foreign players (Danmønt, Mondex, Primeur, Digicash) • De Nederlandsche Bank (central bank) • Ministries of Finance and of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Transport, EC, ECB De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  11. Chronological overview - POS • 1985: Shell threatens with own card-system • 1987: joint POS-system of Dutch banks • 1988: authorities leave it to the market • 1988: chipcard-initiative small retailers • 1989: joint chipcard pilot banks/retailers • 1991: chipcard-pilot ended succesfully • 1991: Albert Heijn supports POS -> success De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  12. Chronological overview - 2 • 1993-1994: market initiatives • Primeur Card (smaller retailers, chip) • KPN with phone card + • Proton, Mondex: foreign purse-systems • Digicash with e-cash • Concern for banks and regulators De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  13. Chronological overview - 3 • 1994-1995: first reactions • Banks start joint chipcard pilot, based on Proton • DNB initiates EMI report on electronic money • loading is actually ‘attracting deposits’ • e-money issuance needs to be supervised • Statement by working group of public authorities: e-money requires supervision (note: Ministry of Economic Affairs disagrees) De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  14. Chronological overview - 4 • Eind 1995-1997: further developments • Postbank and KPN Telecom develop and roll out Chipper while other banks roll out Chipknip • Joint banks develop I-pay (after digiclash) • Regulators study/consider their roles • BIS-, G-10 and ECB studies on e-money • possible EU directive on e-money De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  15. Chronological overview - 5 • 1998-1999 Chipcard war ends;rules appear • retailer loyalty cards met chip (Edah etc) • interoperable Chipper/Chipknip terminals • risk management for electronic banking (BCBS) • report on electronic money (ECB) • e-money issuers need to be a bank ! • Dutch Competition authority set up De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  16. Chronological overview - 6 • 2000: steady progress • Chipcard use slowly increases • Shell pilots Easypay payment product • Postbank sells Chipper (international) • Directives on e-money finalised • supervision necessary • issuing organisation not necessarily a bank • lighter regime of supervision envisaged De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  17. Chronological overview - 7 • 2001: chip moves, mobile payment starts • Pre-paid chip-only card for parking/vending • Postbank - Telfort trial M-payments • Nedap pilot mobilepay at as station(GSM) • Tripper-pas Groningen (proximity) • Increasing number of interventions on NL and EU-level • Start of work on implementation directives De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  18. Chronological overview - 8 • 2002: chip works, more intervention • Chipcards take off • A number of mobile initiatives ahead • Investigation ‘pinnen’ (Nma) • Investigation Wellink (DNB) • Investigation entry barriers and switching costs (Ministeries of Finance and Economic Affairs) • Draft supervisory legislation and rules De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  19. Conclusion • Legislation on e-money is the result of market developments and response by regulators • The challenge is now to allow innovation and competition under an ‘old’ regulatory framework De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  20. Some remarks - 1 • Market • Banks respond swiftly to external threats (chipknip, I-pay) • Large users come up with dedicated systems • New m-payments (incl internet use) arrive • Dutch regulators • Speedy implementation (definitions…) • Late consultation of the market De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  21. Some remarks - 2 • Differences with the UK: • UK had no specific regulation in place before EMI-directives; in NL Act on Supervision ‘applied’ ; -> different starting point for a representative organisation • UK regulators tend to consult market in time De instelling voor elektronisch geld

  22. De instelling voor elektronisch geld

More Related