Featured Product

    IMF Publishes Notes Examining Regulatory Issues Related to Fintech

    January 10, 2020

    IMF published notes on the regulation of crypto assets and on the institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision. The note on the regulation of crypto assets identifies selected elements of regulation and supervision that authorities should consider when deciding on a regulatory framework for crypto assets. The note on institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision presents findings from a review of the institutional arrangements in 10 jurisdictions; it highlights that the fintech institutional framework mostly mirrors the established responsibilities for financial-sector policy, supervision, and development.

    Note on regulation of crypto assets 

    The note briefly summarizes some of the most relevant risks related to crypto assets and concentrates on how regulatory frameworks could address these risks. To illustrate the analysis, some country examples are compiled in the Appendix. Some of the risks incurred by investors are, for instance, operational and cyber risk of wallet providers and the crypto trading platform; market, credit, and default risk of issuers; comingling risk of assets; liquidity risk of both issuers and service providers; market manipulation; misselling; and fraud. Crypto assets are also vulnerable to misuse for money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, crypto assets may generate contagion and business model risks, which may potentially become systemic and warrant a prudential response.

    The note highlights that regulators need to continuously monitor the crypto-asset landscape to understand the direction of industry developments. Ongoing efforts to address data gaps to monitor markets and potential contagion effects to the existing financial sector are welcome. Regulators need to take a proactive approach to address any risks potentially emerging from industry developments and swiftly build capacity and expertise in new instruments and new technology, given the high reputational risks involved. Capacity and resources of supervisory authorities, in addition to the potential damage to trust in the financial sector, will need to be evaluated in each case. Moreover, regulators also need to clearly communicate the role of regulation and supervision to the public, emphasizing the risks that are borne by investors and consumers. While regulation should be tailored to jurisdiction-specific features, a consistent approach and international cooperation will be key to prevent and minimize regulatory arbitrage and potential inconsistencies in the application of laws and regulations.

    Note on institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision

    The note reviews the institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision in 10 jurisdictions, including both advanced economies and emerging market and developing economies. These jurisdictions are UK, France, US, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Japan, Malta, Singapore, and Switzerland. The note describes the division of responsibilities among national authorities, the organization of supervisory authorities’ main fintech functions, and domestic and international coordination on fintech matters. The note highlights that countries differ in the emphasis placed on promoting the development of fintech as opposed to regulating it. Some regulators prioritize traditional prudential and conduct objectives. Others give more weight to innovation, inclusion, competition, and development. 

    Most supervisors have set up a core fintech group and an expert network. The core group is usually full time and is supported by a network of experts across the agency which is available to help as needed on specific issues. Domestic and international coordination takes various forms. Coordination among domestic agencies typically makes use of existing senior-level structures; when fintech issues arise, they are referred to a sub-committee or result in the creation of a taskforce to develop proposals. International coordination arrangements range from bilateral agreements and initiatives (for example, fintech Memoranda of Understanding) to multilateral ones coordinated by the standard-setting bodies. In addition, a new multilateral network, the Global Financial Innovation Network, has recently been set up to exchange lessons learned, develop a common sandbox and help firms navigate between different jurisdictions as they aim for scale internationally. Finally, the note emphasizes that, looking to the future, regulators need to be prepared to change their institutional arrangements quickly, given the speed and ubiquity of fintech development.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Fintech, Crypto Assets, Institutional Arrangement, Cyber Risk, IMF

    Related Articles
    News

    IAIS on Package for 2020 Data Collection on ICS and Aggregation Method

    IAIS published technical specifications, questionnaires, and templates for 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and Aggregation Method data collections.

    June 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS to Establish More Innovation Hubs in Europe and North America

    BIS announced that it will establish new Innovation Hub centers across Europe and in North America in cooperation with member central banks.

    June 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED Updates Form FR 2052a for LCR Reporting by Banks

    FED updated the reporting form for FR 2052a, which is used to monitor the overall liquidity profile of certain supervised institutions.

    June 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Statement on Changes to CRR in Response to COVID-19 Crisis

    PRA published a statement that sets out its views on certain amendments made to Capital Requirements Regulations (CRR and CRR2) via EU Regulation 2020/873 (CRR "Quick Fix"), including some guidance for firms.

    June 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    CFRF Publishes Guide for Addressing Climate-Related Financial Risks

    The Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF), which is a joint climate risk forum of FCA and PRA, published a guide written by the industry for the industry to help firms approach and address climate-related financial risks.

    June 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IAIS Paper Provides Guidance on Liquidity Risk Management for Insurers

    IAIS published an application paper on liquidity risk management for insurers.

    June 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Responds to EC Consultation on Digital Finance Strategy for Europe

    EBA published its response to the EC consultation on a new Digital Finance Strategy for Europe.

    June 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Responds to EC Consultation on Digital Finance Strategy

    EIOPA responded to the EC consultation on a new digital finance strategy for Europe.

    June 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESMA Responds to EC Consultation on Digital Finance Strategy

    ESMA published its response to the EC consultation on the new digital finance strategy for EU.

    June 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FSB Report Identifies Gaps in Too-Big-To-Fail Reforms

    FSB published, for consultation, a report on evaluation of the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) reforms for systemically important banks.

    June 28, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 5404