CPMI and IOSCO published a report that shares lessons learned from the ways in which financial authorities cooperate to promote the safety and efficiency of financial market infrastructures (FMIs). This report describes ways in which authorities cooperate with each other in a variety of contexts, with emphasis on the expectations in Responsibility E of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI). The practices presented in the report reflect authorities’ actual experience and elaborate on six key topics: the benefits of cooperation; triggers for cooperation; relevant authorities with regulatory, supervisory, or oversight responsibilities over FMIs; cooperation regarding a specific FMI; designing of cooperative arrangements; and tools for cooperation.
Cooperation among authorities is highly valued and has been demonstrated by central banks, market regulators, and other authorities worldwide for decades. CPMI and IOSCO have observed that cooperation among authorities is evolving and that cooperative arrangements for specific FMIs are growing in number and importance. These developments are due, in part, to the increasing globalization of financial markets, policy decisions resulting in an increased use of and reliance on FMIs, and the systemic importance of particular FMIs domestically and in multiple jurisdictions. Given these observations and the role of cooperation in the regulation, supervision, and oversight of FMIs, CPMI and IOSCO developed this report to share lessons learned by authorities.
The report is designed to share the lessons learned by a wide range of regulators, supervisors, and overseers of FMIs with cooperation. It describes the ways in which authorities cooperate with each other in a variety of contexts, with emphasis on the expectations in Responsibility E under the PFMI. Responsibility E describes how authorities should cooperate with each other, both domestically and internationally, as appropriate, in promoting the safety and efficiency of FMIs. The report includes illustrative effective practices that may inform authorities in their development of, and improvements to, cooperative arrangements for all FMI types. The report concludes with a summary of lessons learned, which reflect several themes that emerged from the review of authorities’ experience. The report may be useful to authorities in jurisdictions that are in the process of developing a regulatory framework for FMIs.
The discussion is not intended to impose additional standards beyond those set out in the PFMI or to provide additional guidance beyond that provided in Responsibility E. Instead, the report identifies and elaborates on a range of issues and practices that authorities have experienced and considered when determining whether, and how, to establish and enhance cooperation that suits their needs and fulfills their respective mandates. The report has benefited from contributions from a range of authorities with responsibilities for regulating, supervising, and overseeing all types of FMI as well as central banks of issue that have an interest in the payment and settlement arrangements of an FMI.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, PFMI, FMI, Systemic Risk, Responsibility E, Supervisory Convergence, Lessons Learned, CPMI, IOSCO
Sam leads the quantitative research team within the CreditEdge™ research group. In this role, he develops novel risk and forecasting solutions for financial institutions while providing thought leadership on related trends in global financial markets.
Previous ArticleESMA Updates Q&A on European Benchmarks Regulation in December 2019
BIS Innovation Hub published the work program for 2021, with focus on suptech and regtech, next-generation financial market infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, open finance, green finance, and cyber security.
In an article published by SRB, Mairead McGuinness, the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability, and Capital Markets Union, discussed the progress and next steps toward completion of the Banking Union.
EBA finalized the two sets of draft regulatory technical standards on the identification of material risk-takers and on the classes of instruments used for remuneration under the Investment Firms Directive (IFD).
EC published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a notification that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has published a special report on resolution planning in the Single Resolution Mechanism.
BoE published a scenario against which it will be stress testing banks in 2021, in addition to setting out the key elements of the 2021 stress test, guidance on the 2021 stress test, and the variable paths for the 2021 stress test.
PRA published a consultation paper (CP3/21) proposes rules regarding the timing of identity verification required for eligibility of depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
FSB published the work program for 2021, which reflects a strategic shift in priorities in the COVID-19 environment.
FCA announced that 50% firms have started using the new data collection platform RegData, which is slated to replace the existing platform known Gabriel.
Bundesbank published Version 5.0 of the derivation rules for completeness check at the form level, with respect to the data quality of the European harmonized reporting system.
FED finalized a rule that updates capital planning requirements to reflect the new framework from 2019 that sorts large banks into categories, with requirements that are tailored to the risks of each category.