FSB published public responses to the consultation on recommendations for consistent national reporting of data on the use of compensation tools to address misconduct risk. FSB expects to publish the final recommendations in late 2018.
The consultation was published on May 07 and it ended on July 06, 2018. FSB published responses from eleven entities, namely Association of Supervisors of Banks of the Americas, Bank Policy Institute, FirstRand, Global Federation of Insurance Associations, Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) and Institute of International Finance (IIF), International Insurance Foundation, Italian Banking Association, Japanese Bankers Association, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Nordic Financial Unions, and Standard Chartered. The recommendations are a part of the 2015 workplan of FSB on measures to reduce misconduct risk.
At the time of consultation, FSB had highlighted that the recommendations must be viewed in light of the existing national laws and in a manner consistent with the supervisory powers individual regulators have been granted. Decisions on the scope of data gathering, the types of data, and the appropriate data gathering cycle and frequency are solely for national supervisory authorities to make; such decisions should consider the types of supervisory work conducted, the relevant legislative and regulatory framework, the extent to which data is already collected, whether the firm is a significant financial institution, and the specific risk profile or financial activities of the firm.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Misconduct Risk, Compensation Reporting, Recommendations, Responses to Consultation, FSB
Previous ArticleFCA Policy Statements on Extension of SM&CR to Firms and Insurers
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.