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

    EC Consults on PSD2 and Open Finance; EU Reaches Agreement on DORA

    The European Commission (EC) published a public consultation on the review of revised payment services directive (PSD2) and open finance.

    May 11, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Mandates ESAs to Propose Amendments to SFDR Technical Standards

    The European Commission (EC) has issued two letters mandating the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to jointly propose amendments to the regulatory technical standards under Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation or SFDR.

    May 11, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Examines Supervisory Practices, Issues Deposits Reporting Template

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on convergence of supervisory practices for 2021. Additionally, following a request from the European Commission (EC),

    May 11, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agency Publications Address Basel, Reporting, and CECL Developments

    The Farm Credit Administration published, in the Federal Register, the final rule on implementation of the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) methodology for allowances

    May 09, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SEC Extends Comment Period on Climate Risk Disclosures

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) looks set to intensify focus on crypto-assets and cyber risk and extended the comment period on the proposed rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors.

    May 09, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Reduces Committed Liquidity Facility, Issues Other Updates

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced reduction in the aggregate Committed Liquidity Facility and issued an update on the operational preparedness for zero and negative market interest rates.

    May 09, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    CMF Consults on Basel Rules, Presents Roadmap to Address Climate Risks

    The Commission for the Financial Market (CMF) in Chile published capital adequacy ratios (as of February 2022, January 2022, and December 2021) for 17 banks and for the banking system.

    May 06, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Issues Statement on NPEs and Policy on Trading Activity Wind-Down

    The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on the European Banking Authority (EBA) guidelines on management of non-performing exposures (NPEs) and forborne exposures.

    May 06, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Updates Standards for 2023 Benchmarking of Internal Approaches

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) updated the implementing technical standards that specify the data collection for the 2023 supervisory benchmarking exercise in relation to the internal approaches used in market risk, credit risk, and IFRS 9 accounting.

    May 06, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Responds to Stakeholder Views on Blockchain in Insurance

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a feedback statement on the responses received to the consultation on blockchain and smart contracts in insurance.

    May 06, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8172