 Well, it's a great pleasure to be here today. Couldn't really think of a better, more interesting, more timely topic, just with regard to Michael Barr. Thank you very much for those kind introductory remarks. But I should say, first of all, I don't think I ever disagreed with him. I always thought whatever he said had to be correct. And secondly, one of the first things I did when I got my appointment at the Federal Reserve was to call. True fact, Michael, and ask for his advice on what he thought were some of the most important issues. So today, we're all here talking about FinTech. And I think it's escaped no one's notice that the new generation of FinTech tools offers the potential to help consumers manage their increasingly complicated financial lives, but also pose some risks that will need to be managed as the marketplace matures. In many ways, the new generation of FinTech tools can be seen as the financial equivalent of an autopilot. The tools represent the convergence of numerous advances in research and technology, ranging from new insights into consumer behavior to a revolution and available data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. They operate by guiding consumers through complex decisions by offering new ways of looking at a consumer's overall financial picture or simplifying choices, for example, with behavioral nudges. But as consumers start to rely on financial autopilots, it's important that they remain in the driver's seat and have a good handle of what is happening under the hood. Consumers need to know and decide who they are contracting with, what data of theirs is being used by whom and for what purpose, how to revoke data access and delete stored data, and how to seek relief if things go wrong. In short, consumers should remain in control of the data they provide, and consumers should receive clear disclosure of the factors that are reflected in the recommendations they receive. If these issues can be appropriately addressed, the new FinTech capabilities have enormous potential to deliver analytically grounded financial services and simplified choices tailored to the particular consumer's needs and preferences and accessible all on their smartphone. American consumers face complex challenges in their financial lives. The FDIC, for instance, has found that nearly a quarter of Americans that don't maintain bank accounts are concerned that bank fees are too unpredictable. And even though mortgage debt is over two-thirds of overall household debt, nearly half of consumers don't compare us in shop before taking on this enormous obligation. With student loans now making up about 11% of total household debt, which is up by, is essentially doubled since a decade ago, at least 11% of that debt is more than 90 days, delinquent or in default, and this figure may understate the problem by as much as half. And it often is the most vulnerable consumers who have to navigate the most complicated products. For instance, one recent study found that the average length of agreements for credit card products offered to subprime consumers were 70% longer than agreements for other products. With consumers navigating these weighty financial responsibilities, both for themselves and for their families, they could use some help. In the Federal Reserve Survey of Household Economics and Decision Making, the Shed, fully 44% of respondents reported they couldn't cover an emergency cost of $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Given the complexity and importance of these choices, it's encouraging to see the fast-growing development of advanced technology-enabled tools to help consumers navigate the complex issues in their financial lives. These tools build on two streams of research and technological development. One is important advances in our understanding of consumer financial behavior, and the second, the app ecosystem. Let me take each in turn. Researchers have invested decades of work exploring how consumers actually make decisions. We now know that we all tend to make shortcuts to simplify our financial decisions, and it turns out many of these can prove faulty, particularly when dealing with more complicated problems. Empirical evidence consistently shows that consumers overvalue the present and undervalue the future. Researchers have documented that consumers make better savings decisions when they're presented with fewer options. They've shown the importance of anchoring bias, which can lead consumers either to make poor financial choices or instead to tip the scales in favor of better choices as with automatic savings defaults. And similarly, nudges can help consumers in the right circumstances or instead backfire in surprising ways. These behavioral insights are especially powerful now that they can be paired with the remarkable advances in technological tools available to most consumers through their smartphones. The most recent Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer and Mobile Financial Services found that 87% of the U.S. adult population has a mobile phone, the vast majority of which are smartphones, and that this also pertains to unbanked and underbanked populations where smartphone use is similarly prevalent. Survey evidence and facts suggest we're three times more likely to reach for our phones than our significant others when we wake up in the morning. I won't say which category I'm in. Some evidence suggests that consumers are already using their smartphones to make better financial decisions. So in some of our surveys, we found that over 60% of mobile banking users check their account balances on their phones before making a large purchase, and half have decided not to purchase an item as a result. Over 40% of smartphone owners check product reviews or search product information online while they're in retail stores, and nearly 80% of those people have reported that they've changed their purchase decisions based on that information. And of course, this just scratches the surface of what is becoming possible. First of all, the smartphone platform has become a launch pad for an entire ecosystem of apps created by outside developers for a wide variety of services. Second, the smartphone ecosystem puts the enormous computing power of the cloud at the fingertips of consumers. Interfacing with smartphone platforms and other apps, outside developers can tap the computing power of the leading cloud computing providers. And this offers not only the power to process and store data, but also powerful algorithms to make sense of it. Due to early commitment to open source principles, app developers have open access to many of the same machine learning and AI tools that power the world's largest internet companies. In addition, cloud computing providers have taken these free building blocks and created different machine learning and AI stacks on their cloud platforms so that a developer that wants to incorporate AI into their financial management app can access off-the-shelf models from these cloud computing providers rather than taking the time to develop them in-house. Third, consumer financial data are increasingly available to developers via a new breed of business-to-business suppliers. The data aggregators enable outside developers to access consumer account and transactional information typically stored by banks. But aggregators do more than just provide access to raw data. They facilitate its use by developers by cleaning it, by standardizing it across institutions and offering their own APIs for easy integration. Further data aggregators are also beginning to provide off-the-shelf product stacks on their own platforms such that developers can quickly and easily incorporate product features such as predicting credit worthiness, determining how much a consumer can save each month or creating alerts for potential overdraft charges. While researchers have long documented the benefits of tailored financial coaching, until recently it's been hard to deliver that kind of service affordably and at scale due to differences in consumer circumstances. Take for example, the deferred interest credit cards. It turns out a small minority of consumers tend to miss the deadlines for repaying promotional balances and thus being charged retroactive interest payments. And these consumers typically have deep subprime scores. Similarly for consumers that opt into overdraft products on their checking accounts, 8% of consumers pay 75% of the fees. Up until very recently, it's been hard for consumers to understand those odds and objectively assess whether they are likely to be in the group of customers that face those kinds of challenges. But the convergence of smartphone ubiquity, cloud computing, data aggregation, and off-the-shelf AI products offer the potential to make tailored financial advice scalable. For instance, a FinTech developer could pair historical data about how different types of consumers fare with a specific product on the one hand, with a consumer's particular financial profile on the other to make a prediction about how that particular consumer is likely to fare with the product. Since the early days of internet commerce, developers have tried to move beyond simple price comparison tools to offer tailored agents for consumers that can recommend products based on analyses of individual behavior and preferences. Today, a new generation of personal financial management tools seem poised to make that leap. When a consumer wishes to select a new financial product, he or she can now solicit options from a number of websites and mobile apps. The comparison sites can walk the consumer through a wide array of financial products, offering to compare features like rewards, fees, and rates, or tailoring to a consumer stated goals. Some FinTech advisors ask consumers to provide access to their bank accounts, retirement accounts, college savings accounts, and other investment platforms in order to enable a FinTech advisor to offer a consumer a single near-complete picture of balances and cash flows across those different accounts. In reviewing the advertising terms and conditions of an array of FinTech advisors, it appears that many of these tools offer advanced data analysis, machine learning, and AI to help consumers cut down on unnecessary spending, set aside money for savings, and use healthy nudges to improve their financial decisions. For instance, a FinTech advisor may help a consumer automate savings rules like rounding up charges and putting the difference into savings, enabling these small balances to accumulate over time, perhaps enabling a vacation, or a repayment of a particular debt, or setting a small amount of money aside every time a consumer spends money on little splurges. Now, the early stages of innovation inevitably feature a lot of learning from trial and error. Fortunately, as the FinTech ecosystem advances, there are useful experiences and good practices to draw upon from the evolution of the commercial internet. To begin with, one internet adage is that if a product is free, and you'll recognize this quote, you are the product. In this vein, FinTech advisors frequently offer free services to consumers and earn their revenue from the credit cards and other financial products that they recommend through lead generation. Of course, many FinTech advisors are not lead generators. Some companies offer fee-for-service models. Other companies are paid by employers who then provide products free of charge to their employees as a benefit. In these cases, they likely have quite different business models, but for those services that do act as lead generators, there are important considerations about whether and how best to communicate information to the consumer about the nature of the recommendations being made. For instance, according to some reports, FinTech advisors can make between $100, all the way up to $700 in lead generation fees for every customer that signs up for a credit card they recommend. In many cases, a FinTech advisor may describe their service as providing tailored advice or making recommendations as they would to friends and family. In such cases, a consumer might not know whether the order in which the products are presented is based on the product's alignment with their personal needs or different considerations. A product may be at the top of the list because the sponsoring company has paid the advisor to list it at the top or the sponsoring company may pay the FinTech assistant a high fee contingent upon the consumer signing up for the product. Alternatively, a FinTech advisor may change the order of the loan offers or credit cards based on the likelihood that a consumer will be approved. More of in some cases, the absence of lead generation fees for a particular product may impact whether it is on the list a consumer sees at all. There appears to be a wide variety of practices regarding the prominence and placement of advertising and other disclosures relative to the advice and recommendations such firms provide. Overall, FinTech assistants have increasingly improved the disclosures that explain to consumers how they get paid, but this is a work in progress. The good news is that these challenges are not new. The experience with internet search outside of financial products such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, as well as with other product comparison sites such as Travelocity and Yelp may provide useful guidance. As consumers and businesses have adapted to the internet, we have adopted norms and standards for how we expect search and recommendation engines to operate. We generally expect that search results will be included and ranked based on what's organically most responsive to the search unless it's clearly labeled otherwise. Accordingly, when we search for a product, we now know to look for visual cues that identify paid search results, usually in the form of a text label like sponsored or ad, different formatting and separation between advertising and natural search results. Even when an endorsement is made in a brief Twitter update, we now expect disclosures to be clear and conspicuous. As FinTech advisors evolve to engage consumers in new ways, disclosure methodologies will no doubt be expected to adapt as well. For instance, some personal financial management tools now interact with consumers via text messages. If consumers move to a world in which most of their interactions with their FinTech advisors occur via text messaging chatbots or voice communications, I'm hopeful that industry regulators, consumers and other stakeholders will work together to adapt the disclosure norms to distinguish between advice and sponsored recommendations. While the lead generation revenue model presents some familiar issues, under the hood FinTech relationships raise even more complex issues for consumers in knowing who they are providing their data to, how their data will be used, for how long and what to expect in the case of a breach or fraud. Let me briefly touch on each of these issues in turn. Often when a consumer signs up with a FinTech advisor or other FinTech app, they're asked to log into their bank account in order to link the FinTech app with their bank account data. In reviewing apps enrollment processes, it appears that consumers are often shown login screens featuring bank logos and branding, prompting consumers to enter their online banking logins and passwords. In many cases, the apps note that they do not store those credentials. When the consumer logs on, he or she is often not interfacing with his bank's computer systems, but rather providing the bank account login and password to a data aggregator that provides services to the FinTech app. In many cases, the data aggregator may store the password and login and then use those credentials to periodically log into the consumer's account and copy available data ranging from transaction data to account numbers to personally identifiable information. In other cases, things work differently under the hood. Some banks and data aggregators have agreed to work together to facilitate the ability to share data with outside developers in authorized ways. These agreements may delineate what types of data will be shared and authorization credentials may be tokenized so that passwords are not stored by the aggregator. It's often hard for the consumer to know what is actually happening under the hood. In most cases, the login process does not do much to educate the consumer on the precise nature of the data relationship. Screen scraping usually invokes the bank's logo and branding, but infrequently shows the logo or name of the data aggregator. In reviewing many apps, it appears that the name of the data aggregator is frequently not disclosed in the FinTech app's terms and conditions, and a consumer generally would not easily see what data is held by a data aggregator or for how long or how it's used. The app's websites and terms and conditions of FinTech advisors and data aggregators often don't explain how frequently that data will be accessed or how long it will be stored. Recognizing this as a relatively young field, but one that's growing fast, there are a myriad of questions about the consumer's ability to opt out and their control over data that will need to be addressed appropriately. In examining the terms and conditions for a number of FinTech apps, it appears that consumers are rarely provided information explaining how they can terminate the collection and storage of their data. For instance, when a consumer deletes a FinTech app from his or her phone, it's not clear this would guarantee that a data aggregator would delete the consumer's bank login and password nor discontinue accessing transactions information. If a consumer severs the data access, for instance, by changing banks or bank account passwords, it's also not clear how he or she can instruct the data aggregator to delete the information that's already been collected. And given that data aggregators often don't have consumer interfaces, consumers may be left to find an email address for the data aggregator, send in a deletion request and hope for the best. If things go wrong, consumers may have limited remedies. In reviewing terms, it appears that many FinTech advisors include contractual waivers to limit consumers ability to seek redress from the advisor or an underlying data aggregator. In some cases, the terms and conditions assert the FinTech developer and its third-party service providers will not be liable to consumers for the performance of or inability to use the services. And it's not uncommon to see terms and conditions that limit the FinTech advisors' liability to the consumer to $100. Traditionally, under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and its implementing regulation E, consumers have had productions to mitigate their losses in the event of erroneous or fraudulent transactions that would otherwise impact their credit and debit cards, such as data breaches. Those protections aren't absolute, of course. In particular, if a consumer gives another person an access device to his account and grants them authority to make transfers, then the consumer is fully liable for transfers made by that person, even if that person exceeds their authority until the consumer notifies the bank. Clearly, as the industry matures, the various stakeholders will need to develop a shared understanding of who bears responsibility in the event of a breach or fraud. So what can be done to make sure consumers have the requisite information and control to remain squarely in the driver's seat? Establishing and implementing new norms is in the shared interest of all of the participants in the FinTech stack. For instance, in the case of credit cards, mortgages, and many other products, it's often banks or parties closely affiliated with banks that pay fees to FinTech advisors to generate leads, pursuant to a contract. Though these contractual relationships with FinTech, through these contractual relationships with FinTech advisors, banks have considerable influence in the lead generation relationship, including through provisions describing how a sponsored product should be described or displayed. Banks have a stake in ensuring their vendors and third party service providers act appropriately that consumers are protected and treated fairly and that the bank's reputations aren't exposed to unnecessary risk. As for consumers' relationships with data aggregators, there's an increasing recognition that consumers need better information about the terms of those relationships, more control over what's shared, and the ability to terminate the relationship. We've spoken to data aggregators who recognize the importance of finding solutions to many of these complex issues involved with unlocking the potential of the banking stack to developers. And while there are some difficult issues in this space, other issues seem relatively straightforward. It shouldn't be hard for a consumer to be informed who they are providing their credentials to. Consumers should have relatively simple means of being able to consent to what data are being shared and at what frequency, and consumers should be able to stop data sharing and request the deletion of data that has been stored. Responsibility for establishing appropriate norms in this space should be shared with banks, data aggregators, FinTech developers, consumers, and regulators all having a role. Banks and data aggregators are negotiating new relationships to determine how they can work together to provide consumers access to their data while also ensuring the process is secure and leaves consumers in the driver's seat. In many cases, banks themselves were often the original customers of data aggregators, and according to public filings, more than half of the 20 largest banks are current customers of data aggregators. As customers of data aggregation services, the banks have an opportunity to ensure that the terms of data provision protect the consumer's data and handle it appropriately. Regulators also recognize that there may be opportunities to provide more clarity about how the expectations surrounding third-party risk management would work in this sector. Through external outreach and internal analysis, we are working to determine how best to encourage such socially beneficial innovation in the marketplace. While ensuring consumers' interests are protected, we recognize the importance of working together and the potential to draw upon existing policies, norms, and principles from other arenas. Consumers may not fully understand the differences in regulations across financial products or types of financial institutions or whether the rules change when they move from familiar search and e-commerce platforms to the FinTech stack. Consumers as well as the market as a whole will benefit if regulators coordinate to provide more unified messages and to support the development of standards that serve as a natural extension of the common-sense norms that consumers have come to expect in other areas. So let me conclude where I began. The combination of technologies that put vast computing power, rich data sets, and AI onto simple smartphone apps together with important findings about consumer financial behaviors has great potential to help consumers navigate their complex financial lives more effectively, but there are also important risks. I'm hopeful that FinTech developers, data aggregators, banks, consumers, and regulators will continue working together to keep consumers in the driver's seat. If we do so, the FinTech stack may be able to offer enormous benefits to the consumers we all aim to serve while appropriately identifying and managing the risks. So with that, I'll conclude my comments and I'm happy to take a few questions. Thank you. Thank you.