Regulatory financial modelling
RegFunds builds the long-horizon forecasts, own funds plans and capital adequacy models that EMIs, payment institutions, PSPs, CASPs, VASPs and DLT firms rely on to obtain and hold their licences across the EU, the UK, Gibraltar and Switzerland, the GCC, the US and Canada.
The capital picture
The requirement is not a flat line. A payment institution’s own funds move with payment volume (Methods A, B and C), an EMI holds 2% of average outstanding e-money (Method D), and a CASP under MiCA holds the higher of its fixed minimum or a quarter of annual fixed overheads.
So the model tracks own funds against a target that moves with the business. When equity builds a sustained surplus above it, distributions become possible — the model shows when that window opens.
What we do
We build the financial model a regulator relies on to judge whether a payments or crypto business is adequately capitalised.
Our focus is the regulatory-licensing financial model: long-horizon projections, the planning of a company’s equity (own funds), and the capital adequacy and capital sufficiency requirements that apply to authorised payment and digital-asset firms.
Each model is built to the granularity the project needs — detailed enough to satisfy a competent authority, and clear enough to serve management and shareholders making real funding decisions.
Capabilities
One financial model, built around the regulatory submission and the decisions behind it.
Multi-year P&L, balance sheet and cash flow projections built from the business plan, pricing and volume assumptions.
Forecasting the company’s own funds and equity position, and the timing and size of the capital injections required.
Modelling the regulatory capital requirement and testing that own funds stay above the required minimum throughout.
Funding requirements, runway and liquidity position under the base case and under stress.
Adverse and reverse-stress scenarios showing how losses are absorbed and where capital comes under pressure.
Reporting cuts and granularity tailored to board, management and shareholder decisions, alongside the regulatory exhibit.
Sectors
We work with the businesses where own funds and capital adequacy sit at the centre of the licence.
Electronic money institutions, e-money issuers, wallets and stored-value platforms.
Payment institutions and payment service providers, including acquirers and processors.
Crypto-asset service providers under MiCA: exchanges, custody, brokerage and trading.
Virtual asset service providers registering under AML-based regimes.
Distributed ledger technology providers seeking framework-specific authorisation.
Federal FinCEN registration and state money transmitter licences for money transmission and payments.
Why capital matters
Own funds are the part of the application a regulator tests hardest.
A licensing model has to do more than show revenue. It must demonstrate how the business is funded, whether equity and own funds stay above the required minimum, how losses are absorbed, and how the firm holds up under adverse and reverse-stress scenarios. That is the test RegFunds builds the model to pass.
Coverage
Each model is sized to the authorisation framework that applies in the jurisdiction.
Electronic money institution and payment institution authorisation under EMD2 and PSD2, and crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorisation under MiCA.
National competent authorities — Bank of Lithuania, Central Bank of Ireland, BaFin, CSSF, MFSA
UK electronic money and payment institution authorisation and cryptoasset registration; Gibraltar DLT provider licensing.
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) · Gibraltar Financial Services Commission (GFSC)
FINMA fintech licence under Article 1b of the Banking Act, full banking licence, and DLT trading facility authorisation, with SRO affiliation for AML supervision.
FINMA · self-regulatory organisations (VQF, SO-FIT)
Stored value and retail payment services, and virtual asset service provider licensing across the Gulf.
CBUAE · VARA · ADGM FSRA · DFSA · Central Bank of Bahrain · SAMA
Federal money services business (MSB) registration and state money transmitter licence (MTL) applications.
FinCEN · state regulators via NMLS
Money services business (MSB) registration under the PCMLTFA, retail payment service provider registration, and Québec money-services licensing.
FINTRAC · Bank of Canada (RPAA) · Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF)
Approach
We start from the business plan, product, pricing, expected volumes, staffing, funding and the target jurisdiction, and challenge assumptions early.
We build the long-horizon forecast, own funds and equity plan, capital adequacy position and stress scenarios as one consistent model.
You receive clear exhibits for the regulator, the board and shareholders, with the granularity each audience needs and revisions supported.
FAQ
EMIs and e-money firms, payment institutions and PSPs, CASPs and VASPs, DLT firms, and US MSBs and state MTL applicants.
The European Union, the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Switzerland, the GCC region, the United States and Canada, sized to the relevant licensing framework.
Long-horizon forecasts, own funds and equity planning, capital adequacy and capital sufficiency modelling, liquidity and funding, and adverse and reverse-stress scenarios.
Yes. Granularity is set to the project: detailed enough for the competent authority, and clear enough for management and shareholders making funding decisions.
Yes. An existing model can be reviewed, strengthened or rebuilt so it is consistent and ready for regulatory review.