IOSCO published a series of eleven good practices on processes for deference to assist regulatory authorities in mitigating the risk of unintended, regulatory-driven market fragmentation and to strengthen international cooperation. The aim of the good practices identified in the report is to help members in establishing and operating efficient deference processes. They are underpinned by the philosophy that deference processes should be outcomes-based, risk-sensitive, transparent, sufficiently flexible, and supported by strong cooperation. IOSCO drew on the experience of the EC and members of the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI)-IOSCO to develop these good practices.
Over time, the use of deference between regulators has significantly increased, in parallel with enhanced cross-border capital flows. In June 2019, IOSCO published a report on market fragmentation and cross-border regulation, suggesting that it should identify good practices to enhance the processes for deference determinations further. The good practices identified in the report cover all phases of deference assessments—from the initial stages to the processes put in place once an assessment determination has been made. These practices focus on several key issues, including the following:
- Arrangements for ensuring transparency of deference processes, including the scope, steps, and criteria
- The criteria for making an outcomes-based assessment of the assessed authority and/or firm, including the nature of the supervisory and enforcement practices in the assessed jurisdiction
- Important factors such as the nature and degree of risks that entities from another jurisdiction may pose in their markets
- The level of engagement, cooperation, and communication between the assessing authority and the assessed authority and/or firm throughout the process and once deference has been granted
- Revocation of a deference determination
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Good Practices, Deference Processes, Cross-Border Activities, Market Fragmentation, Systemic Risk, IOSCO
Previous ArticleIASB Decides on Effective Date for Phase 2 Benchmark Reform Proposal
The Bank of England (BoE) published the Statistical Notice 2021/09 requiring additional information from firms and software vendors to assist in the onboarding and testing phases for migrating statistical reporting to the BEEDS portal.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the final rules on the Investment Firms Prudential Regime (IFPR) to streamline and simplify the prudential requirements for solo-regulated UK firms authorized under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).
The working groups of the Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF) published a second round of guides (or Session 2 guides), written by the industry for the industry, to help financial firms manage climate-related financial risks.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the final Policy Statement PS24/21 that contains the new Non-Performing Exposures Securitization Part of the PRA Rulebook and an updated Supervisory Statement SS10/18 on the general requirements and capital framework with respect to securitizations.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.
The European Central Bank (ECB) Guideline 2021/1829 on the procedures for the collection of granular credit and credit risk data has been published in the Official Journal of European Union.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final draft regulatory technical standards on disclosure of investment policy by investment firms, under the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).
The European Council adopted conclusions inviting the European Union (EU) and the member states to further develop the cybersecurity crisis management framework.
The European Commission (EC) adopted the work program for 2022.