Connect with us

Finance

Banks and tech companies at odds over online fraud liability in UK

Published

on

Meta is facing calls from U.K. banks and payment firms like Revolut to financially compensate people who fall for scams on their services.

Jaap Arriens | Nurphoto via Getty Images

Tensions are escalating between banking and payment companies and social media firms in the U.K. over who should be liable for compensating people if they fall victim to fraud schemes online.

Starting from Oct. 7, banks will be required to start compensating victims of so-called authorized push payment (APP) fraud a maximum £85,000 if those individuals affected were tricked or psychologically manipulated into handing over the cash.

APP fraud is a form of a scam where criminals attempt to convince people to send them money by impersonating individuals or businesses selling a service.

The £85,000 reimbursement sum could prove costly for large banks and payment firms. However, it’s actually lower than the mandatory £415,000 reimbursement amount that the U.K.’s Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) had previously proposed.

The PSR backed down from its bid for the lofty maximum compensation payout following industry backlash, with industry group the Payments Association in particular saying it would be far too costly a sum tor the financial services sector to bear.

But now that the mandatory fraud compensation is being rolled out in the U.K., questions are being asked about whether financial firms are facing the brunt of the cost for helping fraud victims.

On Thursday, London-based digital bank Revolut accused Meta of falling “woefully short of what’s required to tackle fraud globally.” The Facebook-owner announced a partnership earlier this week with U.K. lenders NatWest and Metro Bank, to share intelligence on fraud activity that takes place on its platforms.

Woody Malouf, Revolut’s head of financial crime, said that Meta and other social media platforms should help cover the cost of reimbursing victims of fraud and that, by sharing no responsibility in doing so, “they have no incentive to do anything about it.”

Revolut’s call for large tech platforms to financially compensate people who fall for scams on their websites and apps isn’t new.

Proposals to make tech firms liable

Tensions have been running high between banks and tech companies for some time. Online fraud has risen dramatically over the last several years due to an acceleration in the usage of digital platforms to pay others and buy products online.

In June, the Financial Times reported that the Labour Party had drafted proposals to force technology firms to reimburse victims of fraud that originates on their platforms. It is not clear whether the government still plans to require tech firms to pay compensation out to victims of APP fraud.

A government spokesperson was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

Matt Akroyd, a commercial litigation lawyer at Stewarts, told CNBC that, after their victory on lowering the maximum reimbursement limit for APP fraud down to £85,000, banks “will receive another boost if their efforts to push the government to place some regulatory liability on tech companies is also successful.”

However, he added: “The question of what regulatory regime could cover those companies who do not play an active role in the PSR’s payment systems, and how, is complicated meaning that this issue is not likely to be resolved any time soon.”

More broadly, banks and regulators have long been pushing social media companies for more collaboration with retail banks in the U.K. to help combat the fast-growing and constantly evolving fraud threat. A key ask has been for the tech firms to share more detailed intelligence on how criminals are abusing their platforms.

How Americans are losing their life savings to crypto fraud

At a U.K. finance industry event focusing on economic fraud in March 2023, regulators and law enforcement stressed the need for social media companies to do more.

“We hear anecdotally today from all of the firms that we talk to, that a large proportion of this fraud originates from social media platforms,” Kate Fitzgerald, head of policy at the PSR, told attendees of the event.

She added that “absolute transparency” was needed on where the fraud was occurring so that regulators could know where to focus their efforts in the value chain.

Social media firms not doing enough to combat and remove attempts to defraud internet users was another complaint from regulatory authorities at the event.

“The bit that’s missing is the at-scale social media companies taking down suspect accounts that are involved in fraud,” Rob Jones, director general of the National Economic Crime Centre, a unit of the U.K. National Crime Agency, said at the event.

Jones added that it was tough to “break the inertia” at tech companies to “really get them to get after it.”

Tech firms push ‘cross-industry collaboration’

Meta has pushed back on suggestions that it should be held liable for paying out compensation to victims of APP fraud.

In written evidence to a parliamentary committee last year, the social media giant said that banks in the U.K. are “too focused on their efforts to transfer liability for fraud to other industries,” adding that this “creates a hostile environment which plays into the hands of fraudsters.”

The company said that it can use live intelligence from big banks through its Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE) initiative to help stop fraud and evolve and improve its machine learning and AI detection systems. Meta called on the government to “encourage more cross-industry collaboration like this.”

In a statement to CNBC Thursday, the tech giant stressed that banks, including Revolut, should look to join forces with Meta on its FIRE framework to facilitate data exchanges between the firm and large lenders.

FIRE “is designed to enable banks to share information so we can work together to protect people using our respective services,” a spokesperson for Meta said last week. “Fraud is a multi-sector spanning issue that can only be addressed by working collaboratively.”

Continue Reading

Finance

Treasury Bond Volatility Forces Bessent to Double Debt Buyback Size as Yields Swing

Published

on

Bessent

A turbulent week in the U.S. Treasury market prompted the Treasury Department to sharply increase the size of its long-term debt buyback program, as bond prices fell even while equity markets pushed toward record highs. The divergence has drawn attention from fixed-income strategists who see it as a signal of underlying investor unease about federal borrowing levels.

What Happened This Week

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Thursday, August 20, 2026, that the Treasury had doubled the size of its long-term debt buyback operations, moving from roughly $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation. Bessent indicated the figure could climb further, saying “we’re going to increase the size of the buyback,” and noted the accelerated pace could exceed the announced $4 billion threshold per issue.

Buybacks allow the Treasury to repurchase outstanding government bonds directly from the market, which can help support prices and dampen yield volatility during periods of stress. The expanded program came as stocks staged a late-week recovery: the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 both advanced on Friday, August 21, even as Treasuries logged mild losses, according to Bloomberg market data.

Why Bond and Equity Markets Are Diverging

Capital.com senior market analyst Daniela Hathorn described the week’s dynamic as markets “ending the week on a softer tone after the relative calm of early August was disrupted by renewed pressure in global bond markets, another rise in oil prices, and growing uncertainty around the Federal Reserve’s next move.” She noted that higher long-term borrowing costs are increasingly challenging elevated equity valuations, even as U.S. equities pull back modestly from record highs.

This divergence — equities near record levels while bonds sell off  is unusual and reflects two different sets of investor concerns. Equity investors have remained focused on corporate earnings strength, particularly from large technology companies ahead of Nvidia’s closely watched August 26 earnings report. Bond investors, by contrast, are more directly exposed to concerns about the scale of federal borrowing, highlighted this week by the national debt crossing the $40 trillion threshold for the first time.

The Fed and Treasury “Working in Opposite Directions”

Wilmington Trust senior bond portfolio manager Wil Stith told Yahoo Finance that current conditions reflect “the Fed and the Treasury basically working in sort of opposite directions,” adding that the imbalance will likely require the Federal Reserve  which he described as having “the larger sandbox”  to adjust the federal funds rate rather than relying on Treasury market interventions alone to manage yields.

Notably, the bond market’s reaction to the Treasury’s buyback expansion was relatively muted; strategists described the move as being largely absorbed without a major rally, suggesting the underlying pressure on yields stems from factors, such as inflation persistence and debt sustainability concerns, that a buyback program alone cannot resolve.

What Comes Next

Markets are now looking to two major events in the days ahead: Nvidia’s earnings report on Wednesday, August 26, and the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, running August 27-29. This will be the first Jackson Hole gathering under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, whose public communication style and policy signals remain less established than his predecessors’, according to market commentary from Regards of Wall Street.

For investors, the key metrics to watch are the size and frequency of future Treasury buyback operations, movements in the 10-year Treasury yield, and any policy signals from Warsh’s keynote address. Continued yield volatility alongside record equity valuations would suggest the market imbalance identified this week has not yet been resolved.

 

Continue Reading

Finance

Cross-Border Settlement Innovation and Real-Time Payment Architecture

Published

on

The global banking system is undergoing a comprehensive modernization of cross-border payment infrastructure. Driven by real-time settlement networks, open banking APIs, and interoperable messaging standards, financial institutions and multinational corporations are eliminating multi-day delays and reducing transaction costs associated with legacy international wire transfers.

Transition to Real-Time Gross Settlement Networks
Historically, international business-to-business (B2B) payments relied on complex correspondent banking relationships involving intermediary fees and processing delays. In 2026, the widespread adoption of ISO 20022 messaging protocols alongside interconnected Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) systems allows direct, end-to-end processing of cross-border transfers.

Commercial banks are providing corporate clients with continuous, 24/7 payment clearing capabilities. Real-time transaction confirmation and automated FX rate locking allow international businesses to settle cross-border trade obligations within minutes, significantly reducing counterparty risk.

Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Interoperability
Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) pilot initiatives are reaching operational maturity across several key financial centers. Collaborative multi-CBDC platforms enable participating central banks and commercial institutions to settle foreign exchange and international trade transactions directly on shared distributed ledgers.

These wholesale digital currency networks eliminate traditional clearinghouse delays and minimize foreign exchange slippage. Enterprise treasury departments benefit from enhanced liquidity management, as cross-border cash balances can be deployed and repatriated instantaneously.

Corporate Treasury Transformation
For enterprise treasurers, instant cross-border settlement transforms cash management strategies:
– Working Capital Optimization: Reduced transaction float allows companies to lower precautionary cash reserves and optimize short-term liquidity investments.
– Automated Reconciliation: Enriched data formats embedded in ISO 20022 payment messages streamline automated general ledger posting and invoice matching.
– Reduced Processing Overhead: Account-to-account (A2A) real-time clearing bypasses costly intermediary correspondent banking fees.

Strategic Financial Priorities
1. Upgrade Treasury Systems: Ensure internal core enterprise software supports real-time ISO 20022 payment messaging standards.
2. Leverage Instant Clearing Rails: Utilize direct payment networks to lower cross-border transaction fees and eliminate settlement delays.
3. Evaluate Multi-Currency Liquidity: Modernize liquidity management frameworks to capitalize on 24/7 real-time settlement capabilities.

Continue Reading

Finance

Private Credit Expansion and Regulatory Oversight in 2026 Capital Markets

Published

on

The global private credit market has solidified its role as a fundamental pillar of enterprise finance, expanding rapidly across middle-market lending, asset-backed finance, and infrastructure financing. As non-bank financial institutions capture a larger share of corporate debt origination, global regulatory bodies are increasing oversight to evaluate market transparency and systemic risk interconnections.

Growth Drivers in Direct Lending
Direct lending platforms have continued to attract substantial institutional allocations from pension funds, sovereign wealth entities, and insurance companies seeking attractive risk-adjusted yields. Private debt funds offer corporate borrowers customized financing structures, faster execution timelines, and confidentiality compared to syndicated loan markets.

In 2026, private credit managers are increasingly financing larger corporate transactions, providing multi-billion-dollar credit facilities for buyout deals and corporate restructurings. The flexibility of private debt contracts—featuring unitranche pricing and tailored covenant packages—has made direct lending the preferred capital source for middle-market enterprise sponsors.

Regulatory Scrutiny and Systemic Risk Assessment
The rapid growth of non-bank intermediation has drawn heightened scrutiny from financial regulators in North America and Europe. Because private debt agreements are negotiated privately without public exchange disclosures, central banks are evaluating potential vulnerabilities related to asset valuation consistency and fund liquidity profiles.

Regulatory agencies are introducing guidelines aimed at improving reporting standards for private investment vehicles managing institutional assets. Key focus areas include monitoring leverage ratios within private credit funds and evaluating indirect credit exposures between commercial banking institutions and private debt funds.

Navigating Elevated Refinancing Costs
With benchmark interest rates remaining elevated, private debt borrowers face higher debt service obligations on floating-rate credit facilities. Financial advisory firms report an increase in proactive liability management strategies, including payment-in-kind (PIK) interest options, equity infusions from sponsors, and covenant modifications.

Private credit managers with deep operational capabilities are actively working alongside portfolio companies to optimize working capital and maintain cash flow coverage ratios during periods of higher borrowing costs.

Key Financial Takeaways
1. Mainstream Asset Class: Private credit has expanded beyond niche alternative asset status into a core corporate finance solution.
2. Enhanced Transparency Standards: Regulatory frameworks are evolving toward greater disclosure requirements for private debt managers.
3. Proactive Risk Management: Lenders and sponsors must prioritize debt sustainability and active portfolio monitoring amid high benchmark rates.

Continue Reading

Trending