FSB published a note summarizing the main issues raised and views expressed in responses to the discussion paper on regulatory and supervisory issues on outsourcing and third-party relationships. The discussion paper, which was open for comments from November 2020 to January 08, 2021, described the existing regulatory and supervisory approaches and outlined the common regulatory and supervisory challenges associated with outsourcing and third-party risk management. Nearly 39 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders, including banks, insurers, asset managers, financial market infrastructures, third-party service providers, industry associations, public authorities, and individuals. Overall, respondents welcomed the discussion paper, agreed with the challenges and issues identified in the paper, and suggested measures to address these challenges.
Respondents agreed that concentration risks in the provision of certain critical services are very difficult to substitute and with the rights to access, audit, and obtain information from third parties. Additional potential challenges or issues that were highlighted as deserving attention are intra-group outsourcing; fragmentation of regulatory, supervisory, and industry practices across sectors and borders; restrictive data localization requirements; cyber and data security; and resource constraints at financial institutions. To address these challenges or issues, respondents suggested a range of measures that can be categorized into five areas:
- Development of global standards on outsourcing and third-party risk management. Many respondents expressed that global standards could strengthen resilience and ability of financial institutions to manage outsourcing and third-party risks. These standards could help to address regulatory and supervisory fragmentation; however, they should be proportionate to the complexity, size, nature, and risk profile of different financial institutions.
- Adoption of consistent definitions and terminology. A number of respondents asked FSB to clarify or improve certain existing definitions to enable clear understanding of what activities are in the scope of regulation while others suggested that FSB should establish globally consistent definitions and terminology (or a lexicon) related to outsourcing, cloud computing, and operational resilience.
- Use of pooled audits, certificates, and reports. Many respondents suggested that FSB should encourage the use of pooled audits as an effective form of third-party risk management that can help to reduce the burden on the relevant stakeholders; yet others suggested that supervisory authorities should encourage the use of certificates and reports provided by third-party service providers to evidence compliance with internationally recognized standards as a means of promoting a consistent approach to third-party oversight by financial institutions.
- Dependency mapping and enhanced supervisory oversight. Several public authority respondents suggested that financial institutions should establish an inventory of services and technologies provided by third-parties to map financial institutions’ dependency on third-parties. They also suggested that financial institutions should periodically evaluate the information they receive from third-party service providers, regularly update the skills and training of employees responsible for monitoring their third-party dependencies, and share their experiences with supervisory authorities.
- Enhanced cross-border cooperation and dialog with stakeholders. Many respondents suggested that FSB should organize a regular international forum (or a public-private global working group) comprising relevant stakeholders to exchange views and best practices, with a focus on cross-border issues associated with outsourcing and third-party relationships. Such forum could also confidentially discuss concerns and practical experiences on specific cross-border or cross-sectoral issues while leveraging the existing regulatory and supervisory arrangements.
Most respondents did not mention significant issues with regard to financial institutions’ outsourcing or third-party relationships during the COVID-19 crisis while others stated that the crisis had highlighted the benefits of outsourcing. A number of respondents also stated that the crisis evidenced the resilience of critical service providers (such as cloud service providers) and their cyber-security capabilities. However, a few public authority respondents observed that the categorization of critical services at some financial institutions may need to be revisited in light of the crisis. Some services that had been categorized as “not critical” were found to be material.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, COVID-19, Third-Party Risk, Systemic Risk, Outsourcing Risk, Cloud Computing, Responses to Consultation, FSB
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous ArticleACPR Makes Available Non-Taxonomic Controls Under RUBA Taxonomy
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final policy statement PS21/21 on the leverage ratio framework in the UK. PS21/21, which sets out the final policy of both the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) and PRA
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed to amend Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) decided to maintain, at the 2019 levels, the buffer rates for the Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SII) for another year, with no new rates to be set until December 2023.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a progress report on implementation of its high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements.
In a letter to the authorized deposit taking institutions, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced an increase in the minimum interest rate buffer it expects banks to use when assessing the serviceability of home loan applications.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are consulting on the preliminary guidance that clarifies that stablecoin arrangements should observe international standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have set out their respective work priorities for 2022.
The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) updated the guidelines on supervisory reporting requirements under the reporting framework 3.0, in addition to the reporting module on leverage under the common reporting (COREP) framework.
The European Commission (EC) published the Implementing Decision 2021/1753 on the equivalence of supervisory and regulatory requirements of certain third countries and territories for the purposes of the treatment of exposures, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).
EC published the Implementing Regulation 2021/1751, which lays down implementing technical standards on uniform formats and templates for notification of determination of the impracticability of including contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers.