IOSCO published a report that examines instances of regulatory-driven fragmentation in wholesale securities and derivatives markets and considers what actions regulators can take to minimize its adverse effects. The report focuses on market fragmentation that arises as an unintended consequence of financial regulation. It provides examples of market fragmentation that IOSCO members consider to be significant and potentially harmful to the oversight and supervision of financial markets. Based on the analyses, the report proposes potential measures that IOSCO and relevant national authorities could explore to mitigate the risk and potential adverse effects of fragmentation on global securities markets.
The report further examines the progress made by IOSCO members in using deference and analyzes the regulatory mechanisms and tools associated with this concept (example, passporting, substituted compliance, recognition or equivalence). In doing so, the report follows up on a 2015 IOSCO report on cross-border regulation and seeks to identify the remaining challenges that can restrict cross-border activities. Regulators have become increasingly aware of the risks associated with unintended market fragmentation and are cooperating more to mitigate its effects through deference and its associated tools. Also, regulators have developed novel processes to work multilaterally to the benefit of the markets they oversee. Nevertheless, several challenges remain and strengthening cooperation between authorities could further assist in addressing adverse effects on the financial system stemming from market fragmentation.
The concerns of IOSCO about the risks of fragmentation are shared by other international organizations and policymakers. These entities include the G20, which has made market fragmentation a top priority, and FSB, which also published a paper on market fragmentation. The report proposes potential measures that IOSCO and relevant national authorities could explore to mitigate the risk and potential adverse effects of fragmentation on global securities markets. These measures include ways to foster further mutual understanding of one another’s legislative frameworks, deepen existing regulatory and supervisory cooperation, and consider whether there are any good or sound practices that can be identified regarding deference tools. The IOSCO Board will decide on its approach to these next steps in the second half of this year.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Market Fragmentation, Cross-Border Regulation, Derivatives, IOSCO
Previous ArticleFSB Report Examines Ways to Address Market Fragmentation
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.
MAS published the guidelines on individual accountability and conduct at financial institutions.
APRA published final versions of the prudential standard APS 220 on credit quality and the reporting standard ARS 923.2 on repayment deferrals.
SRB published two articles, with one article discussing the framework in place to safeguard financial stability amid crisis and the other article outlining the path to a harmonized and predictable liquidation regime.
FSB hosted a virtual workshop as part of the consultation process for its evaluation of the too-big-to-fail reforms.
ECB updated the list of supervised entities in EU, with the number of significant supervised entities being 115.
OSFI published the key findings of a study on third-party risk management.
FSB is extending the implementation timeline, by one year, for the minimum haircut standards for non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions or SFTs.