The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that provides a cross-country overview of policy responses to fintech developments, based on the survey responses from about 30 jurisdictions. The paper identifies several challenges facing authorities such as keeping up with the speed of technological change to understand novel business models and develop adequate policy responses, collecting data on fintech developments, adjusting regulatory reporting requirements, cooperating and coordinating at the local and international levels, and continuing to prevent regulatory arbitrage.
The paper also proposes a conceptual framework for analyzing policy responses to fintech, referred to as the "fintech tree." The fintech tree identifies three categories: fintech activities, enabling technologies, and policy enablers. Authorities pursue a range of approaches when regulating fintech activities. For digital banking, licensing regimes or other specific requirements are the exception. Some jurisdictions, however, have launched initiatives to facilitate the establishment of new banks, including digital banks. For enabling technologies, regulators have adjusted their existing regulations to add technology-specific elements in existing laws, regulation, or guidelines. However, there are no licensing regimes or other requirements that are specific to insurtech business models in surveyed jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the absence of insurtech-specific requirements does not mean that authorities are not responding to the increasing digitalization of the insurance business.
The survey reveals that almost all participating jurisdictions have either modified their existing regulatory frameworks or clarified their regulatory expectations on the use of cloud computing by financial institutions. Only a few jurisdictions have issued regulations specific to the distributed ledger technology while, to date, there are no specific regulatory requirements for financial institutions’ use of machine learning and artificial intelligence. However, a few jurisdictions have issued non-binding principles to encourage ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence by financial institutions. Additionally, given its critical role in the economy, almost all jurisdictions have put in place cyber-security regulations and guidance specific for the financial sector.
Among the identified challenges, collecting data related to fintech developments and adjusting regulatory reporting requirements has been identified as a common challenge in most jurisdictions. Wherever licensed, authorities are obtaining information from regulated entities, including new entrants offering fintech services, through regulatory reporting. Other sources include information obtained through innovation facilitators or through the research of other public and private organisations. However, a survey conducted in 2019 by the Irving Fisher Committee found that fintech developments present various challenges to statisticians in a number of central banks. Some of these challenges are related to the granularity of data required to identify fintech firms and the integration of fintech activities in business classifications.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Fintech, Regtech, Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, Cyber Risk, Cloud Computing, Big Data, Insurtech, Reporting, BIS, FSI
Previous ArticleFED Finalizes Regulation to Determine Control of Banking Entity
Next ArticleIOSCO Publishes Annual Work Program for 2020
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.
The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2021/1527 with regard to the regulatory technical standards for the contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers.
In a response to the questions posed by a member of the European Parliament, the President Christine Lagarde highlighted the commitment of the European Central Bank (ECB) to an ambitious climate-related action plan along with a roadmap, which was published in July 2021.
The Single Resolution Board (SRB) published a Communication on the application of regulatory technical standard provisions on prior permission for reducing eligible liabilities instruments as of January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to provide guidance to authorized deposit-taking institutions on the interpretation of APS 120, the prudential standard on securitization.
The French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) published the corrective version of the RUBA taxonomy Version 1.0.1, which will come into force from the decree of January 31, 2022.
The European Commission (EC) announced that Nordea Bank has signed a guarantee agreement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group to support the sustainable transformation of businesses in the Nordics.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify the regulatory capital treatment of investments in the overseas deposit-taking and insurance subsidiaries.