在今年6月舉辦的《財(cái)富》頭腦風(fēng)暴金融大會(huì)上,，我的討論組被問(wèn)到了一個(gè)問(wèn)題：金融科技這個(gè)行業(yè)究竟是監(jiān)管過(guò)度還是監(jiān)管不足,？根據(jù)各自的產(chǎn)品，討論組專(zhuān)家們給出的回答不一,，卻體現(xiàn)出了一大共性：看情況而定,。

金融科技公司面對(duì)大量金融監(jiān)管條例，在合規(guī)問(wèn)題上要付出高昂代價(jià),，而這些監(jiān)管針對(duì)的主要是我們不做的事情,。與許多科技驅(qū)動(dòng)的行業(yè)一樣，我們的監(jiān)管條例嚴(yán)重不合時(shí)宜,，它起草于應(yīng)用還相當(dāng)于一桌大餐中的炸薯?xiàng)l,、垃圾郵件只是肉罐頭的年代。想象一下,，法規(guī)出臺(tái)時(shí),，你的行業(yè)或產(chǎn)品根本還不存在，而你卻要在它的管理下經(jīng)營(yíng)公司,。這就是大部分金融科技公司的現(xiàn)狀,。“銀行”是什么,，發(fā)揮什么作用？國(guó)會(huì)對(duì)監(jiān)管者的這類(lèi)指導(dǎo)還停留在20世紀(jì)70年代的銀行業(yè)水平,。

我們接觸的監(jiān)管者和立法者經(jīng)常和我們說(shuō)：“我們知道這些法律過(guò)時(shí)了,，需要廢棄和改寫(xiě)，但這個(gè)工程太大,、太難,，需要投入太多的工作?！痹谀撤N程度上,，他們沒(méi)有說(shuō)錯(cuò)。銀行的董事會(huì)成員和聯(lián)邦監(jiān)管者無(wú)法把握變化的范圍或跟上變化的節(jié)奏,，也可能只是在堅(jiān)持把每家公司都看作一家銀行,，每筆貸款都看作30年的抵押貸款,。

銀行其實(shí)已經(jīng)不再作為一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)而存在了。消費(fèi)者行為還在,，金融服務(wù)還在——它們屬于一個(gè)復(fù)雜而不斷變化的問(wèn)題與解決方案網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的一部分,。

為了跟上變革的步伐，英國(guó)采用了一種全新的方法,，這值得美國(guó)借鑒研究,。英國(guó)監(jiān)管的是服務(wù)——也就是企業(yè)真正在做的事情。不同的執(zhí)照和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)管理著向購(gòu)房者或小型企業(yè)提供的借貸,。銀行之間的處理付款不會(huì)帶來(lái)類(lèi)似存款的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，所以在英國(guó)，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敏感型的監(jiān)管對(duì)此較為放松,。

放棄實(shí)體銀行或中產(chǎn)階級(jí)抵押貸款等一刀切式的金融關(guān)系模型,，有助于推廣定制化、專(zhuān)業(yè)化,，重新塑造消費(fèi)者與企業(yè)的關(guān)系,。將Pandora和Spotify看作20世紀(jì)70年代唱片公司或廣播站的過(guò)時(shí)監(jiān)管條例，最終導(dǎo)致了全方位的版權(quán)變革,。消費(fèi)者對(duì)金融服務(wù)的期待,，其變化幅度絲毫不遜于他們對(duì)音樂(lè)行業(yè)的期待。變革早就應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)了,。

位于加利福尼亞州,、在發(fā)展中國(guó)家開(kāi)展小額信貸業(yè)務(wù)的公司Tala利用手機(jī)使用習(xí)慣來(lái)判定用戶(hù)信譽(yù)。如果一個(gè)潛在借款人定期充值通話(huà)時(shí)間,，有著相識(shí)多年的廣泛關(guān)系網(wǎng)并保持聯(lián)系,，還定期支付其他訂單，那么他為了進(jìn)貨水果而借款50美元貸款或購(gòu)買(mǎi)摩托車(chē)而借款250美元,，償還的概率就會(huì)很高,。而同樣，對(duì)于金融科技模型的預(yù)測(cè)有所幫助的數(shù)據(jù)類(lèi)型或來(lái)源,，潛在借款人或許愿意共享,，也有可能不愿意。

現(xiàn)代監(jiān)管條例應(yīng)該允許消費(fèi)者決定誰(shuí)有權(quán)訪問(wèn)他們的數(shù)據(jù),，選擇對(duì)保險(xiǎn),、投資、處理付款或存款等某項(xiàng)特定服務(wù)的共享內(nèi)容,。這是走向透明和創(chuàng)新的途徑,。

直到最近，消費(fèi)者還無(wú)權(quán)獲知自己的信用數(shù)據(jù),，而銀行卻在用它們來(lái)決定借款人在金融上的未來(lái),。具有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)的監(jiān)管條例讓消費(fèi)者有權(quán)看到這些記錄,，挑戰(zhàn)它們的準(zhǔn)確性，盡管這會(huì)遭遇數(shù)據(jù)持有方的阻力,。我們出臺(tái)的規(guī)定要讓消費(fèi)者控制自己的金融數(shù)據(jù)和銀行服務(wù),，不是把這項(xiàng)權(quán)力交給銀行，這點(diǎn)當(dāng)然至關(guān)重要,。

但是我們也不能走向極端,。在龐大統(tǒng)一的監(jiān)管框架下，消費(fèi)者日益期待的充滿(mǎn)活力,、選擇廣泛,、形態(tài)各異的產(chǎn)品難有容身之地，無(wú)論是搖滾樂(lè)還是小型商業(yè)貸款都是如此,。讓廣播站記錄你昨天聽(tīng)到深夜的歌曲,，在當(dāng)年聽(tīng)上去十分荒謬。但如今,，人們已經(jīng)愛(ài)上了由收集這類(lèi)數(shù)據(jù)的公司所提供的定制體驗(yàn)和精選推薦,。

無(wú)論銀行和監(jiān)管方是否做好了準(zhǔn)備，銀行業(yè)都在飛速地發(fā)生變化,。幾乎沒(méi)有哪個(gè)千禧一代愿意走進(jìn)一家銀行支行,，并與出納員進(jìn)行對(duì)話(huà)——“銀行業(yè)”對(duì)他們而言并不意味著這些。如果你不打算購(gòu)置房產(chǎn),、生育小孩,、上大學(xué)或直接用支票存款，貝寶（PayPal）就是你唯一需要的銀行,。

如果你想要其他服務(wù),，也總有一家銀行可以實(shí)現(xiàn)。請(qǐng)讓人們選擇他們想要的世界,，而不是強(qiáng)迫他們走進(jìn)一個(gè)更適合過(guò)去的世界,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

凱瑟琳·佩特里亞是Kabbage的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人及總裁。

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

During Fortune’s Brainstorm Finance conference in June, my panel was asked whether fintech, as an industry, faces too much or too little regulation. Panelists answered the question differently depending on their product and a common theme emerged: It depends.

Fintech companies face costly compliance with a mountain of financial regulations, most of which describe work we don’t do. Like many technology-driven industries, our regulations are horribly outdated, authored at a time when an app meant fries for the whole table, and spam was just canned meat. Imagine running a business under laws written before your industry or product ever existed. That’s the reality for most fintechs. Congress’s directions for regulators about what “banks” are and do are based on how banking worked in the 1970s.

Regulators and lawmakers we meet with regularly tell us: “We know the laws are outdated and need to be scrapped and rewritten, but it’s just too big, too hard, and too much work.” To some extent, they’re right. Bank board members and federal regulators can’t grasp the scope or pace of change, or possibly keep up if they insist on treating every company like a bank and every loan like a 30-year mortgage.

Banks, as institutions, don’t really exist anymore. Customer activities exist and financial services exist—and they’re part of a complex and perpetually shifting network of problems and solutions.

To keep up, the U.K. takes a novel approach that America should examine. The U.K. regulates services—what businesses actually do. Separate licenses and standards govern lending to home buyers or small businesses. Processing payments between banks doesn’t pose the same risk as deposits, so risk-sensitive regulations in the U.K. are relaxed.

Giving up the one-size-fits-all model of financial relationships, such as the brick-and-mortar bank or middle-class mortgage, opens the door to customization, specialization, and reimagining customer-business relationships. Dated regulations treating Pandora and Spotify like 1970s record labels or radio stations led to a total copyright overhaul. Customers’ expectations have changed every bit as much for financial services as for the music industry. Change is overdue.

Tala, a California-based company offering microloans in developing countries, is using mobile phone habits to determine creditworthiness. If a potential borrower tops up his minutes at regular intervals, has a wide network of contacts who he’s known for years and stays in contact with, and pays his other bills regularly, he’s very likely to repay the loan of $50 to stock his fruit stand or $250 for a motorbike. Similarly, for any type or source of data fintech models find predictive, the would-be borrower may consent to share, or not.

Modern regulation should allow the customer to determine who has access to their data, choosing what to share or not to share for a certain service, including underwriting, investing, processing payments, and deposits. This is the path toward transparency and innovation.

Until recently, customers weren’t entitled to access their credit bureau data, which banks were using to make decisions about borrowers’ financial futures. Forward-thinking regulation gave customers the right to see these records and challenge their accuracy, despite resistance from the data holders. It’s certainly important that we develop regulations to give customers control of their financial data and banking services, instead of the banks.

But we can’t take this too far. Monolithic regulatory frameworks don’t allow for the dynamic, interwoven range of options and diversified offerings customers have come to expect, whether they’re rock songs or small business loans. Letting radio stations log what songs you listen to late at night might have seemed absurd back in the day, but now people love the custom experience and curated suggestions provided by companies collecting that data.

Banking is changing fast, whether banks and regulators are ready or not. Very few millennials value walking into a bank branch and speaking to a teller—that’s not what “banking” means to them. If you don’t intend to buy a home, have a child, go to college, or directly deposit a paycheck, PayPal’s the only bank you need.

If you want something else, there’s a company out there that can do it. Let people opt into the world they want, instead of forcing them into the one that was easier yesterday.

Kathryn Petralia is the co-founder and president of Kabbage.