Featured Product

    BIS Examines Financial Stability Implications of Market Fragmentation

    October 01, 2019

    BIS published a working paper that examines the financial stability implications of fragmentation in the global financial markets. The paper reviews the degree of fragmentation in various markets and classifies its possible causes. It then reviews whether fragmentation is necessarily detrimental to financial stability, suggesting that various trade-offs exist. The review suggests that reducing fragmentation and enhancing financial stability are, in general, highly likely to be complementary. Still, fragmentation is not necessarily harmful for financial stability. In specific cases, some degree of fragmentation can actually serve to enhance financial stability.

    The paper identifies and reviews the possible causes of fragmentation—namely, natural barriers, market forces, policy actions and interventions other than financial regulatory actions, and financial regulation and its enforcement. The paper then proceeds to review the costs and benefits of fragmentation, mainly from a financial stability perspective, using examples from securities markets, international banking, and asset prices across countries. It concludes that whereas in some cases there appear to be no clear costs to financial stability, in other cases there might be some. The review also suggests there are clearly cases where (some type or degree of) fragmentation can serve to enhance financial stability. The next area covered is how regulation at the global level affects fragmentation. The last section of the paper builds on the analysis to review what actions may be called for. It argues for the need to develop a framework that can help identify cases where there are potential trade-offs.

    Fragmentation may be bad for financial stability. However, fragmentation and financial stability themselves may also be subject to a trade-off. The paper makes the following proposals by way of a more formal approach to review and, possibly, undertake policy actions.

    • The starting point is more thorough analysis. What needs to be assessed here is the overall social costs and benefits of fragmentation and this needs to be done across jurisdictions. The related question is whether the “bad” elements of fragmentation are prone to escalate to the level of systemic risk. A joint assessment of the causes and a possible trade-off could supply us with a menu of policy options.
    • The second step is to select from that menu the options that can reduce fragmentation while improving financial stability. The aim is to identify improvements along the upward sloping part of the “iso-quant” financial-stability-fragmentation curve. All the drivers involved, not just regulation, would need to be assessed. Such a review may well conclude that the answer to many of the outstanding questions is to continue harmonizing regulation and implementation and enhancing information-sharing processes regarding possible policy actions and the like.
    • Another, parallel step would be to encourage the private sector to provide (more of) its own solutions to complement public interventions. There are many examples of the private sector already using cooperative models to address fragmentation at the global level. For example, CLS Bank is playing a role in wholesale cross-border payments. Consideration is being given to developing more such private (interbank) settlement systems. Policymakers can only welcome that and other private sector approaches.
    • A final step is to intervene using the right tools. There are a number of elements to this. One is to choose the most efficient instrument with which to intervene. For example, there can be differences between price- and quantity-related regulations in terms of effectiveness and benefits in the presence of uncertainty. There is also much to learn from private-sector solutions that can be built. Another element is to allow for some state contingency in applying the instrument chosen; for example, barriers to the allocation of liquidity and capital are clearly more costly in times of stress. Analyzing and then addressing these elements will help ensure that the public-sector intervenes not just when necessary, but also with the most effective tools.

     

    Related Link: Working Paper

     

    Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Financial Stability, Financial Integration, Regulation and Supervision, Research, Market Fragmentation, Basel III, BIS

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    APRA Announces Deferral of Capital Reform Implementation

    APRA announced that it is deferring the scheduled implementation of Basel III reforms in Australia by one year.

    March 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IFRS Publishes Statement on Its Work During the COVID-19 Crisis

    IFRS, in its statement, emphasized that it shares global concerns about the impact of COVID–19 and is supporting its stakeholders by reconsidering timelines of its meetings and publications, providing information on the application of IFRS 9 on financial instruments, and offering calendar updates on ongoing activities.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    US Agencies Announce Changes to SA-CCR and CECL Rules Due to COVID-19

    In light of the recent disruptions in economic conditions due to the COVID-19 outbreak, US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) announced two actions to allow banking organizations to continue lending to households and businesses.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    IAIS Adjusts Work Program to Address Impact of COVID-19 on Insurers

    Considering the impact of COVID-19 outbreak, IAIS announced initial adjustments to its work program to provide operational relief to its member supervisors, insurers, and other stakeholders.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI Announces Regulatory Adjustments to Support COVID-19 Efforts

    OSFI published three targeted industry letters that announce a series of regulatory adjustments to support the financial and operational resilience of federally regulated banks, insurers, and private pension plans in the light of COVID-19.

    March 27, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    UK Regulators Announce Measures to Address Impact of COVID-19

    UK Regulatory Authorities published statements and guidance addressed to financial entities on dealing with the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak.

    March 26, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA and Industry Request Delay in Timeline for Initial Margin Rules

    Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, ISDA submitted a letter on behalf of 21 industry associations and their members requesting BCBS, IOSCO, and global regulators to suspend the current timeline for the initial margin phase-in.

    March 26, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FCA, FRC, and PRA Issue Joint Statement to Address Impact of COVID-19

    In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, FCA, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), and PRA have announced a series of actions and made statements to support the continued functioning of capital markets in the UK.

    March 26, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Rule Corrects Regulation Supplementing Solvency II Directive

    EC published the EU Delegated Regulation 2020/442, which corrects the EU Delegated Regulation 2015/35 that supplements Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC).

    March 26, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED and FFIEC Offer Reporting Relief to Institutions Due to COVID-19

    FED and FFIEC announced regulatory reporting relief to financial institutions due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19.

    March 26, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4900