General Information & Client Service
  • 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 Articles
News

HKMA Decides to Maintain Countercyclical Capital Buffer at 2.5%

HKMA announced that, in accordance with the Banking (Capital) Rules, the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) ratio for Hong Kong remains at 2.5%.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EP Approves Agreement on Package of CRD 5, CRR 2, BRRD 2, and SRMR 2

The European Parliament (EP) approved the final agreement on a package of reforms proposed by EC to strengthen the resilience and resolvability of European banks.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FDIC Consults on Approach to Resolution Planning for IDIs

FDIC approved an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and is seeking comment on ways to tailor and improve its rule requiring certain insured depository institutions (IDIs) to submit resolution plans.

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EP Resolution on Proposal for Sovereign Bond Backed Securities

The European Parliament (EP) published adopted text on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS).

April 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

PRA Seeks Input and Issues Specifications for Insurance Stress Tests

PRA announced that it will conduct an insurance stress test for the largest regulated life and general insurers from July to September 2019.

April 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

PRA Finalizes Policy on Approach to Managing Climate Change Risks

PRA published the policy statement PS11/19, which contains final supervisory statement (SS3/19) on enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change (Appendix).

April 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for April 2019

EBA published answers to nine questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

April 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

EIOPA Statement on Application of Proportionality in SCR Supervision

EIOPA published a supervisory statement on the application of proportionality principle in the supervision of the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculated in accordance with the standard formula.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

FED Updates Form and Supplemental Instructions for FR Y-9C Reporting

FED updated the form and supplemental instructions for FR Y-9C reporting. FR Y-9C is used to collect data from domestic bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, U.S intermediate holding companies, and securities holding companies with total consolidated assets of USD 3 billion or more.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
News

OSFI Finalizes Guidelines on Liquidity Adequacy and NSFR Disclosures

OSFI published the final Liquidity Adequacy Requirements (LAR) guideline and the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) disclosure requirements guideline.

April 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2920