General Information & Client Services
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
June 12, 2017

Claudia Buch, Deputy President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, took part in the panel discussion on "Improving Financial Resilience," at the T20 Summit "Global Solutions" in Berlin on May 30, 2017. She discussed the evaluation of effectiveness of financial sector reforms as a joint task for academia and policymakers, based on transparency, international coordination, and independent assessments.

She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

 

She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

 

Related Link: Speech (PDF)

Keywords: International, BIS, Financial Reforms, Bundesbank, Regulatory Reform, Banking, Securities, Insurance



She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

 

She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

 

Related Link: Speech (PDF)

She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

 

She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

 

Related Link: Speech (PDF)

She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

 

She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

 

Related Link: Speech (PDF)

She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

 

She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

 

Related Link: Speech (PDF)

Related Insights

IMF Reports on 2017 Article IV Consultation with China

August 15, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Updates Data Used for the Identification of G-SIIs

August 11, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

Basel III Monitoring Updates for August 2017

August 10, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Published Opinions on Position Limits Under MiFID II

August 10, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FED Updates Reporting Form FR Y-14Q in August 2017

August 08, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

MAS Consults on Revisions to the Deposit Insurance Scheme

August 04, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for August 2017

August 04, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Consults on Its Approach to Financial Technology

August 04, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

OCC Seeks Comments on Revising the Volcker Rule

August 02, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Update on BEEDS Portal UAT for Capital+ Reporting

July 31, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

IAIS Consults on Revisions to ICP 24

July 31, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook: Final Q&A Updates in July 2017

July 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESRB Publishes Its Annual Report for 2016

July 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EIOPA Consults on Information Requests on IORPs

July 26, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

Bundesbank Updates Structured Q&A on AnaCredit

July 25, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EIOPA Q&A on Regulations for July 2017

July 24, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

BOM Updates Guidelines and Guidance Notes in July 2017

July 21, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

OSFI Revises Implementation Timeline for the FRTB Rules

July 20, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FSB Report on the Peer Review of France

July 20, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

IMF Report on the Use of Supervisory Standards in FSAP

July 20, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

APRA Announces Stronger Capital Benchmarks for Banks

July 19, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

IAIS Newsletter for July 2017

July 18, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Updates Q&A on UCITS and AIFMD

July 11, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESRB Report on Resolving Non-Performing Loans in Europe

July 11, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

SRB Publishes the 2016 Annual Report

July 11, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Updated Q&A on MiFID II/MiFIR Investor Protection

July 10, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EC Consults on Development of Secondary Market for NPLs

July 10, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Updates Q&A on Implementation of MiFID II

July 07, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Consults on Simplifications for Prospectuses

July 06, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Updated Q&A on Market Abuse Regulation

July 06, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FSB Progress Report on Financial Regulatory Reforms

July 03, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FED Reporting Updates for July 2017

July 03, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook: Final Q&A Updates in June 2017

June 30, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FSB Reports on Reforms to OTC Derivatives Markets

June 29, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FED Reporting Updates for June 2017

June 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

DNB Issued Banking Newsletter for June 2017

June 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Publishes Annual Consumer Trends Report for 2017

June 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

DNB Issues Insurance Newsletter for June 2017

June 28, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FPC Publishes Financial Stability Report in June 2017

June 27, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ECB Recommends Amendment to Article 22 of its Statute

June 23, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Circular on AML/CFT Amendment Bill 2017

June 23, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

JFSA Consults on BCBS Pillar 3 Disclosure Requirements

June 23, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Updates SS35/15 on Guidelines for Completing MLAR

June 23, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Consultation on Implementation of IRRBB Standards

June 22, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

IAIS Newsletter for June 2017

June 22, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

FCA Update on Regulatory Sandbox Under Project Innovate

June 22, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Launched 2016 CVA Risk Monitoring Exercise

June 21, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Published Consultation Paper on Recovery Planning

June 21, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Responds to the EC Consultation on Fintech

June 15, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESAs Published Annual Reports for 2016

June 15, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EIOPA Q&A on Regulations for June 2017

June 15, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

RBI Accredits Another Credit Rating Agency INFOMERICS

June 13, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Published CP6/17 on Regulatory Reporting

June 12, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

Bundesbank Updates on AnaCredit Project for June 2017

June 12, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EC Approved Resolution of Banco Popular

June 07, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

ESMA Chair Says Preparation for MiFID II is on Track

June 07, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

Response of ESMA to EC Consultation on Fintech

June 07, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News

EC Report on Information Barriers in SME Funding Market

June 06, 2017 WebPage Regulatory News