The Global Risks Alliance (GRA)
Open finance lets customers direct their bank, payment, savings, insurance and pension data to other providers through secure interfaces, and in some regimes lets those providers initiate payments. It promises competition and better products. It also creates new dependencies on interfaces, new paths for data misuse and new questions about who is liable when something goes wrong. This page sets out how data sharing changes operational, privacy and conduct risk, how it is measured, and who sets the rules.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
Activity and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For open finance, in GRA's spatial-finance reading, the map opens on night lights and population density with night lights tonight from NASA GIBS, framed on East Africa; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Open finance is a regime in which customers can direct their bank, payment, savings, insurance and pension data to other providers through secure interfaces, and in some regimes let those providers initiate payments. It promises competition and better products, and it turns interfaces into infrastructure and consent into the control point.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Open finance · Fintech F1 · Week 26
| Women | 65 | 6 | Within |
| Rural | 38 | 3 | Review |
| Under 25 | 41 | 8 | Review |
Data portability, privacy and access. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Once third parties build services on bank interfaces, downtime or slow responses stop those services too. Availability and response-time standards turn an internal system into infrastructure that other firms and their customers rely on.
Customers grant access through consent journeys that set scope and duration. Poorly designed journeys produce consent that is broad, forgotten or misunderstood, and data keep flowing after the need has passed.
Where dedicated interfaces are weak or absent, providers fall back on screen scraping with the customer's own login details. Shared credentials widen the attack surface and blur liability when funds or data are lost.
A failed or fraudulent payment initiated through a third party touches the customer, the account provider and the initiating firm. Where dispute and redress rules are unclear, losses fall on whoever is least able to contest them.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Open banking | Open data sharing limited to payment accounts, as under the EU PSD2 regime. |
| Screen scraping | Accessing account data by logging in with a customer's credentials instead of a dedicated interface. |
| Third-party provider | A licensed firm that accesses account data or initiates payments with the customer's consent. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dedicated interface availability | percent of time available | quarterly | Account provider performance reporting | OFFICIAL |
| Interface response time | milliseconds at the median and the tail | quarterly | Account provider performance reporting | OFFICIAL |
| Active consents | count by data scope | monthly | Implementation entity statistics | REPORTED |
| Payments initiated through third parties | transactions per month | monthly | Implementation entity statistics | OFFICIAL |
| Authorised third-party providers | count by licence type | monthly | National and EU registers | OFFICIAL |
| Complaints and disputes on data sharing | cases per quarter | quarterly | Ombudsman and regulator records | REPORTED |
| Personal data breaches involving financial data | notifications per year | annual | Data protection authority records | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| EBA register of payment and electronic money institutions | Authorised account information and payment initiation providers across the EU | Public register, EBA terms |
| UK Open Banking performance and usage statistics | Interface availability, response times and call volumes by account provider | Public records, terms per publisher |
| Banco Central do Brasil Open Finance data | Participants, consents and interface performance in Brazil's open finance system | Public records, open data terms |
| Financial regulator registers (FCA Financial Services Register and peers) | Permissions held by each data and payment provider | Public records, terms per regulator |
| Data protection authority annual reports | Breach notifications and enforcement involving financial data | Public records, terms per authority |
| Financial ombudsman decisions | Disputes involving third-party access and payment initiation | Public records, terms per scheme |
Fintech Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Financial and competition regulators | Which data sets, products and firms an open finance regime covers, and on what timetable | Comparative regime notes, uptake and performance statistics, complaint trends |
| Implementation entities and standards bodies | What interface, security and consent standards participants must meet | Availability and response-time records, incident histories, consent design evidence |
| Data protection authorities | Whether consent, purpose limitation and retention in data sharing meet the law | Consent journey reviews, breach notifications, data-minimisation designs |
| Boards of account providers and third-party firms | How much to invest in interface resilience and in due diligence on the firms they connect to | Interface performance, dependency maps, liability maps |
Open finance relies on standardized application programming interfaces through which institutions share customer data, with the customer's consent, with authorized third parties. Approaches range from mandated regimes, where regulators require data sharing and set standards, to market-led arrangements. Some regimes extend to payment initiation, letting third parties move money on the customer's instruction.
Consent is the foundation, and its quality is a known weakness: long terms, repeated prompts and complex data flows can make consent a formality. Liability allocation between data holders and recipients is complex, particularly when data pass through several intermediaries. Security depends on the weakest connected party, so the vetting and monitoring of third parties matter.
Benefits depend on whether data sharing produces products that customers value, such as better credit assessment for people with thin credit files, or simply new channels for marketing. Evidence is still accumulating, and outcomes differ across markets.
Interoperability is a practical constraint. Where each institution implements interfaces differently, third parties face high integration costs and uneven reliability, which limits competition; common technical standards, conformance testing and clear dispute arrangements are therefore as important as the legal mandate.
Comparing legal frameworks, standards and adoption across jurisdictions.
Studying understanding of consent and outcomes for users.
Assessing security models and incident patterns.
Limits: adoption data are often reported by industry bodies with incomplete coverage, and long-term effects on competition are hard to isolate.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.