MAS published a joint statement, by the U.S. and Singapore, on the financial services data connectivity across their borders. US and Singapore support allowing financial service suppliers to transfer data across borders and oppose generally applicable data localization requirements as long as financial regulators have access to the data needed for regulatory and supervisory purposes. This is because data localization requirements can increase cyber-security and other operational risks, hinder risk management and compliance, and inhibit financial regulatory and supervisory access to information.
The United States and Singapore recognize that the ability to aggregate, store, process, and transmit data across borders is critical to financial sector development. The expanding use of data in financial services and the increasing use of technology to supply financial services offer a range of benefits, including greater consumer choice, enhanced risk management capabilities, and increased efficiency. These developments also pose new and complex risks for markets and challenges for policymakers and regulators. Data mobility in financial services supports economic growth and the development of innovative financial services and benefits risk management and compliance programs, including by making it easier to detect cross-border money laundering and terrorist financing patterns, defend against cyber attacks, and manage and assess risk on a global basis.
The United States and Singapore also intend to share information on developments related to these issues and, as appropriate, encourage third countries to adopt policies consistent with this joint statement. Based on this shared understanding, US and Singapore intend to seek to promote adoption and implementation of policies and rules in bilateral and multilateral economic relationships to facilitate the following goals:
- Ensure that financial service suppliers can transfer data, including personal information, across borders by electronic means if this activity is for the conduct of the business of a financial service supplier
- Oppose measures that restrict where data can be stored and processed for financial service suppliers as long as financial regulators have full and timely access to data needed to fulfill their regulatory and supervisory mandate
- Ensure that financial service suppliers have the opportunity to remediate the lack of access to such data before being required to use or locate computing facilities locally
Keywords: Asia Pacific, Singapore, Banking, Data Connectivity, Fintech, Cyber Risk, Operational Risk, AML/CFT, MAS
Previous ArticleOCC Releases Dodd Frank Act Stress Test Scenarios for 2020
APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.
ESAs (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) published the first joint report that assesses risks in the financial sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
BoE and HM Treasury confirmed that the COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) will close for new purchases of commercial paper, with effect from March 23, 2021.
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
EBA has decided to phase out the guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria of loan repayments, in accordance with the earlier specified end of September deadline.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.