Big Debate: Are banks/financial institutions doing enough in terms of player affordability?

Yes

Clive Hawkswood, executive adviser, Gambling Integrity  Yes, I believe they are doing enough in this particular area, and my conclusion is based on a supplementary question that I asked myself. In short, it was whether it was even right or necessary for the banks/financial institutions to be doing more? The fact they can track every penny going in and out of an account is valuable information indeed, but it is a sensitive issue when it comes to personal data. On the first of these, let’s not forget the huge impact of GDPR requirements and the fight to protect individuals’ privacy. All of that cannot be conveniently put aside, simply because safer gambling is involved. Although the law in this area is largely untested, the principles are clear and it cannot be right for banks to be seen to throw open their doors to gambling operators. It would be more useful for the government to enable operators to share relevant information in order to get a truly single customer view, but that is a debate for a different day. On the second and more fundamental point, I would suggest that operators can fulfil their regulatory requirements without recourse to the highly confidential data held by the banks. As a non-executive director for a company that provides a non-invasive affordability solution, I will declare a vested interest in this approach. However, I am sure that by using already available personal data and open data, very accurate affordability assessments can be made. Between that and the enhanced due diligence checks that are required for anti-money laundering purposes, how much extra data or help is really required from the banking sector? I would say little or none. Consequently, my conclusion is that banks are doing enough because in reality we don’t need them to be doing any more than they already are. Oh, and a PS, if banks/financial institutions do provide more, then all operators had better get ready to open their cheque books to pay through the nose for it…. No Dave Pope, marketing director, HooYu  Back in 2018, Barclays led the way to help their customers reduce or stop spending with gambling operators, and challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling followed suit. However, a report last year by GambleAware found that just eight financial companies offered customers the chance to block future payments to gambling sites. Of the banks that do offer gambling blocks, some of them permit the block to be turned off at will, while others such as NatWest force customers to wait 48 hours before they can make gambling-related payments, during which time transactions will be automatically declined. But the bottom line is that 40% of current accounts offer no help in this area. So, are banks doing enough to help their customers here? Probably not. More banks and financial institutions (FI) should offer this service to their users. What can banks do to help operators make better decisions regarding customer affordability? Open banking obviously helps here, albeit open banking is an affordability solution that stems from regulatory drivers. Also, most problem gamblers will gamble across multiple financial instruments, so insight driven from open banking will only show part of the affordability picture. The single most useful thing banks and FIs could do to help affordability is help operators get access to credit reference agency insight data files that would enable gaming operators to make better affordability decisions. In the same way a FI makes a lending decision based on the total picture of a person’s credit exposure, an operator should be making wagering affordability decisions based on a person’s aggregated spend across gaming operators. This will require legislative change but if the banks, the operators, the BGC and the UKGC work together, then it’s a win for the gambler, the bank (whose duty it is to help their customers manage their financial affairs) and a win for the industry to stay the course on the road to sustainability.