FSB published a discussion paper on the regulatory and supervisory issues related to outsourcing and third-party relationships. The discussion paper presents an overview of the evolving regulatory and supervisory landscape for outsourcing and third-party risk management in FSB member jurisdictions. It briefly describes the existing regulatory and supervisory approaches and outlines the common regulatory and supervisory challenges associated with outsourcing and third-party risk management, also identifying key issues for further exploration. FSB is seeking comments, by January 08, 2021, on the questions set out in the discussion paper.
In January-March 2020, the FSB Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC) conducted a survey among member jurisdictions on the existing regulatory and supervisory landscape for outsourcing and third-party risk management, including cross-border supervisory challenges and potential financial stability issues. The discussion paper provides a high-level overview of the existing landscape based on the survey findings as well as the preliminary observations from authorities’ and financial institutions’ recent responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper intends to facilitate and inform discussions among authorities, financial institutions, and third parties on how to address the issues identified in the SRC survey and the 2019 FSB report on third-party dependencies in cloud services. The discussion has highlighted the following key challenges faced by supervisory authorities:
- Practical limitations on the ability to ensure that financial institutions appropriately manage the risks in their outsourcing and third-party agreements (including risks in the third party’s wider supply chain)
- Limitations on their ability to effectively oversee supervised financial institutions’ outsourcing and third-party arrangements in a cross-border context
- Challenges in identifying, monitoring, and managing potential systemic risks related to financial institutions’ use of outsourcing and third-party arrangements, particularly, due to concentration in the provision of third-party services and lack of relevant information
The high pace of evolution of third-party relationships, including where and how financial institutions use third-party providers, can make understanding and managing these risks more complex. In the paper, FSB highlights that additional analysis may be considered to better understand the risks posed by the changing landscape of outsourcing and third-party relationships. The additional analysis may also be considered to better understand whether the existing approaches allow financial institutions to capture the benefits of outsourcing and third-party relationships while sufficiently addressing the risks that these relationships may pose to financial institutions. The discussion paper emphasizes that effective cross-border cooperation and dialog among supervisory authorities as well as the effective application of existing standards and other emerging practices are important to address these challenges and risks.
Comment Due Date: January 08, 2021
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, COVID-19, Third-Party Risk, Systemic Risk, Outsourcing Risk, Cloud Computing, 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 ArticleEBA Reminds Firms to Execute Contingency Plans for Brexit Transition
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.