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

    BoE Seeks Information Before Migrating Statistical Reporting to BEEDS

    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.

    October 25, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FCA Publishes Final Rules on Investment Firms Prudential Regime

    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).

    October 25, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    CFRF Publishes Guides to Manage Financial Risks from Climate Change

    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.

    October 21, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Finalizes Policy for Non-Performing Exposure Securitizations

    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.

    October 21, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Updates Filing Rules for Supervisory Reporting

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published version 5.1 of the filing rules for supervisory reporting.

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Amends Guideline on Procedures for Collection of AnaCredit Data

    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.

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Amends Guideline on Procedures for Collection of AnaCredit Data

    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.

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Publishes Standards on Disclosure of Investment Policy Under IFR

    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).

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EU to Explore Potential of Establishing a Joint Cyber Unit

    The European Council adopted conclusions inviting the European Union (EU) and the member states to further develop the cybersecurity crisis management framework.

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Sets Out Work Program for 2022

    The European Commission (EC) adopted the work program for 2022.

    October 19, 2021 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 7598