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

    APRA Updates Validation and Derivation Rules in September 2020

    APRA updated the lists of the Direct to APRA (D2A) validation and derivation rules for authorized deposit-taking institutions, insurers, and superannuation entities.

    September 24, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Proposes Frameworks for Crypto-Assets and Operational Resilience

    EC adopted a package that includes the digital finance and retail payments strategies and the legislative proposals for regulatory frameworks on crypto-assets and digital operational resilience.

    September 24, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Publishes Opinion on Proposals to Amend Securitization Framework

    ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/22) on proposals for regulations amending the securitization framework of EU, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    September 24, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FCA Consults on Regulation of International Firms in UK

    FCA is consulting on its approach to the authorization and supervision of international firms operating in UK.

    September 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Amends Notice on Capital Adequacy Requirements of Banks

    MAS published amendments to Notice 637 on the risk-based capital adequacy requirements for reporting banks incorporated in Singapore.

    September 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FCA to Begin to Move Firms to New Data Collection Platform RegData

    FCA announced that it will move firms to RegData from Gabriel in the coming months in stages, based on the reporting requirements of firms.

    September 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Expects IBOR Fallbacks to be Effective by End of January 2021

    ISDA issued a letter to regulators to flag that it now expects the supplement to the 2006 ISDA Definitions and the Interbank Offered Rate (IBOR) Fallbacks Protocol to be effective around mid- to late-January 2021.

    September 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Reviews Repayment Deferral Plans, Identifies Best Practices

    APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.

    September 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESAs Assess Risks to Financial Sector After COVID-19 Outbreak

    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.

    September 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BoE Confirms Withdrawal of COVID Corporate Financing Facility

    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.

    September 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 5836