Featured Product

    FSI Studies Involvement of Central Banks in Financial Oversight

    August 04, 2020

    The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that reviews the debate on central bank involvement with financial oversight in the light of recent developments and the evolution of policy frameworks worldwide. The focus is on the interplay between objectives and instruments across different policy domains. The paper covers the evolution of institutional arrangements since the great financial crisis, discusses the case for assigning a financial stability role to central banks, and analyzes links between the micro- and the macro-prudential functions. The paper concludes that, based on the experience with COVID-19 policy response, there seems to be a clear case for assigning the financial stability mandate to central banks and an even stronger one for including both macro- and micro-prudential responsibilities in that mandate.

    The oversight of financial sector involves a number of policy functions aimed to ensure adequate market functioning and the stability and integrity of the financial system. These functions include the monitoring of the solvency and conduct of business of different types of financial institutions. The design of institutional arrangements for financial sector oversight requires these different functions to be assigned to specific agencies. Decisions need be made on how policy objectives should be assigned between different authorities. Traditionally, this question has revolved around identifying conflicts and complementarities between their various remits. Equally important, however, is the question of whether specific policy instruments can be neatly assigned to specific objectives. When a specific policy instrument can significantly influence more than one objective, the case for assigning each of those objectives to a different agency weakens. 

    The COVID-19 crisis has shown how different policy instruments could be activated in parallel by different agencies with the aim of stabilizing the economy and the financial system. It also showed the difficulty of making clear distinctions between actions aiming at addressing deflationary risks (and economic instability more generally) and those targeting the availability of credit to the real economy. Moreover, the measures taken reveal that the latter objective cannot be achieved by purely macroeconomic or macro-prudential measures, without adjusting the micro-prudential policy stance. The impact of various policy instruments on differing social objectives constitutes a challenge for the adequate functioning of institutional arrangements based on allocating monetary, macro-prudential, and micro-prudential responsibilities to different agencies. During a crisis, agencies may naturally agree on the need to adopt extraordinary measures. On the other hand, the challenges of a coordinated policy response may become more severe as authorities decide on the pace of normalization based on their own remit but using instruments that may also affect the other objectives of the other agencies.

    This paper shows that there is a reasonably sound argument for assigning a financial stability function to central banks. It highlights that, based on the experience with COVID-19 policy response, there would seem to be a clear case for assigning the financial stability mandate to central banks and an even stronger one for including both macro and micro-prudential responsibilities in that mandate. The paper also puts forward the view that the financial stability function should encompass both macro-prudential and micro-prudential responsibilities. These two tasks should ideally be combined within a single policy framework comprising the instruments that would allow an authority to address all the different dimensions (entity-by-entity, systemic) of the financial stability objective. Although this lies outside the scope of this paper, political economy considerations could, of course, be equally important for an adequate institutional design. The accumulation of responsibilities by independent authorities, such as central banks, raises issues of democratic legitimacy and accountability. These need to be satisfactorily managed if the chosen formula is to be socially acceptable and, hence, sustainable.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Banking, COVID-19, Macro-Prudential Policy, Micro-Prudential Policy, Financial Stability, FSI

    Related Articles
    News

    BIS and Central Banks Experiment with GenAI to Assess Climate Risks

    A recent report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub details Project Gaia, a collaboration between the BIS Innovation Hub Eurosystem Center and certain central banks in Europe

    March 20, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Nearly 25% G-SIBs Commit to Adopting TNFD Nature-Related Disclosures

    Nature-related risks are increasing in severity and frequency, affecting businesses, capital providers, financial systems, and economies.

    March 18, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Singapore to Mandate Climate Disclosures from FY2025

    Singapore recently took a significant step toward turning climate ambition into action, with the introduction of mandatory climate-related disclosures for listed and large non-listed companies

    March 18, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SEC Finalizes Climate-Related Disclosures Rule

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finalized the long-awaited rule that mandates climate-related disclosures for domestic and foreign publicly listed companies in the U.S.

    March 07, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Proposes Standards Related to Standardized Credit Risk Approach

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been taking significant steps toward implementing the Basel III framework and strengthening the regulatory framework for credit institutions in the EU

    March 05, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Regulators Release Stress Test Scenarios for Banks

    The U.S. regulators recently released baseline and severely adverse scenarios, along with other details, for stress testing the banks in 2024. The relevant U.S. banking regulators are the Federal Reserve Bank (FED), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

    February 28, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    Asian Governments Aim for Interoperability in AI Governance Frameworks

    The regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence (AI), including the generative kind, is evolving rapidly, with governments and regulators aiming to address the challenges and opportunities presented by this transformative technology.

    February 28, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Proposes Operational Risk Standards Under Final Basel III Package

    The European Union (EU) has been working on the final elements of Basel III standards, with endorsement of the Banking Package and the publication of the European Banking Authority (EBA) roadmap on Basel III implementation in December 2023.

    February 26, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EFRAG Proposes XBRL Taxonomy and Standard for Listed SMEs Under ESRS

    The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which plays a crucial role in shaping corporate reporting standards in European Union (EU), is seeking comments, until May 21, 2024, on the Exposure Draft ESRS for listed SMEs.

    February 23, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB to Expand Climate Change Work in 2024-2025

    Banking regulators worldwide are increasingly focusing on addressing, monitoring, and supervising the institutions' exposure to climate and environmental risks.

    February 23, 2024 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8957