Featured Product

    FSI Paper Suggests Regulatory and Policy Options to Oversee Bigtechs

    March 16, 2021

    The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published brief paper examining the regulatory approaches and policy options for oversight of large technology companies, also known as bigtech firms, operating in the financial sector. The paper examines the regulatory landscape for such bigtech firms, discusses the avenues for improvement, explains why bigtech firms are unlike other entities and deserve regulatory attention, outlines their regulatory treatment and financial licensing in a number of jurisdictions, and offers considerations for policymakers. The paper concludes that the entry of bigtech firms into finance calls for a comprehensive public policy approach, which combines financial regulation, competition policy, and data privacy.

    At present, financial services represent a relatively small part of the overall activities of bigtech firms, though this can change rapidly due to the unique features of their business models and they could quickly become systemically important or too-big-to-fail. The financial operations of bigtech firms are subject to the same requirements as those of other market participants, as part of which the bigtech firms need to hold appropriate licenses to perform regulated financial activities or provide their services in partnership with financial institutions that meet the regulatory requirements. Risks connected with bigtech activities in finance may not be fully captured by the present regulatory approach, which is geared toward individual entities or specific activities and not the risks that are created by substantive interlinkages within bigtech groups and their role as critical service providers for financial institutions. The entry of big techs into finance calls for a comprehensive public policy approach that combines financial regulation, competition policy, and data privacy. The paper presents the following policy options that may support authorities in their considerations of the best way to adjust the regulatory framework to address the risks that the business models of bigtech firms entail:

    • Recalibrating mix of entity-based and activity-based rules. Some advocate that any policy adjustments for bigtech firms should move from an entity-based regulatory approach to one that is activity-based, applying the principle of “same activity, same regulation.” However, activity-based regulation can only complement, rather than substitute for, entity-based regulation. For bigtech firms, their business model involves a bundle of varying activities (such as e-commerce, payments, and cloud services), each of which gives rise to a specific set of potentially interrelated risks. Thus, the paper notes that characteristics of bigtech firms should be considered in how they are regulated and makes a case for developing more entity-based rules for bigtech firms in specific regulatory areas such as competition and operational resilience.
    • Developing bespoke policy approach for bigtech firms. Policymakers may conclude that the unique features of bigtech firms warrant a comprehensive public policy approach that focuses not only on individual bigtech entities and their activities but also on their interactions within the bigtech (digital) ecosystem. They can build on existing policy frameworks such as the ones for financial conglomerates and global stablecoin arrangements as well as on approaches being developed by authorities worldwide. A key element of this policy framework would be to monitor and mitigate the systemic risk stemming from a combination of the wide range of activities of bigtech firms. A foundational element of any such approach would be to establish a set of objective criteria for qualifying a firm as bigtech, which could be difficult given the heterogeneity of bigtech firms. 
    • Enhancing local and international supervisory cooperation. In the light of the cross-sectoral and cross-border nature of bigtech activities, it is imperative to emphasize on cooperation and coordination at the local and international levels. A practical step in this direction could be to establish cross-sectoral and cross-border cooperative arrangements between national authorities, including at least financial, competition, and data protection authorities. Such cooperation arrangements could involve or augment the existing arrangements and build on the experience of running supervisory colleges for banks.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Fintech, Cloud Service Providers, Bigtech, Regulatory Approach, Policy Options, Licensing, BIS, FSI

    Related Articles
    News

    EBA Issues Erratum for Phase 2 Package of Reporting Framework 3.0

    EBA published an erratum for the technical package on phase 2 of the reporting framework 3.0.

    April 08, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Updates Lists of Entities for Use in Capital Calculations under SA

    EBA published an erratum for the technical package on phase 2 of the reporting framework 3.0.

    April 08, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Amends Notice on Related Party Transactions of Banks

    MAS amended Notice 643A that addresses requirements for banks to prepare statements of exposures and credit facilities to related concerns or parties.

    April 08, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Amends Guideline on Euro Short-Term Rate

    ECB has published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Guideline 2021/565 on the euro short-term rate (€STR) and this guideline amends the previous ECB Guideline 2019/1265.

    April 07, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Consults on Standards Related to FRTB-SA

    EBA launched a consultation on the draft regulatory technical standards on the list of countries with an advanced economy for calculating the equity risk under the alternative standardized approach (FRTB-SA).

    April 07, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Proposes Rules Related to IRB Approach for Credit Risk

    PRA is proposing, via CP7/21, the approach to implementing new requirements related to the specification of the nature, severity, and duration of an economic downturn in the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to credit risk.

    April 07, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BoE Outlines Regulatory Treatment of Recovery Loan Scheme of UK

    The UK government launched the Recovery Loan Scheme (RLS) as part of its continued COVID-19 support for UK businesses, as announced by HM Treasury on March 03, 2021.

    April 06, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FSB Addresses G20 on COVID Measures, TBTF Reforms, and Climate Risks

    FSB published a letter, from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, to the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, ahead of their virtual meeting on April 07, 2021.

    April 06, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI Unwinds Temporary Increase to Covered Bond Limit for Banks

    OSFI issued a letter to the deposit-taking institutions issuing covered bonds and announced the unwinding of the temporary increase to the covered bond limit for deposit-taking institutions, effective immediately.

    April 06, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EU Amends CRR and Securitization Regulation in Response to Pandemic

    To support recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, EU has published two regulations to amend the securitization framework, as set out in the Securitization Regulation (2017/2402) and the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR (575/2013).

    April 06, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 6826