MAS published its reply to the Parliamentary questions on the EC decision to repeal equivalence status for credit rating agencies (CRAs) in Singapore. Some media reports might have given the impression that EC is reducing its market access to financial institutions in Singapore. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, a Senior Minister and Minister in charge of MAS, explained that the EC decision covers only CRAs, for which it still allows the use of endorsement approach, and does not extend to any other financial services.
Furthermore, EC recognizes CRAs in a third country through two approaches. First, deeming the third country’s CRA rules as equivalent to EC rules, which is called the equivalence decision. Second, an endorsement approach, where the CRAs in the third country rely on their related entities in EU to endorse their ratings. CRAs in Singapore have been using the endorsement approach and EC has confirmed that it will continue to recognize Singapore-based CRAs using this approach.
The CRA regulatory regime of MAS is based on, and consistent with, the standards promulgated by IOSCO. EC has assessed the CRA regulatory regime of MAS to be less prescriptive than EU rules in certain areas, such as in defining specific situations in which a conflict of interest for the CRA arises. MAS takes a more principles-based approach. It nevertheless requires conflicts of interest to be effectively addressed and is fully in line with international standards. Mr. Shanmugaratnam highlighted that Singapore is in good standing with EU. MAS will continue to closely engage its EU counterparts in reviewing the rules to ensure that financial institutions in Singapore continue to have access to the EU market in various financial services.
Keywords: Europe, EU, Asia Pacific, Singapore, Banking, Securities, CRAs, Credit Ratings, Equivalence Decisions, Endorsement Regime, EC, MAS
Previous ArticleEIOPA Publishes Q&A on Regulations in July 2019
BIS published a paper that provides an overview on the use of big data and machine learning in the central bank community.
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
ECB published a guide that outlines the principles and methods for calculating the penalties for regulatory breaches of prudential requirements by banks.
MAS and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) jointly issued a paper that sets out good practices for the management of operational and other risks stemming from new work arrangements adopted by financial institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR announced that a new data collection application, called DLPP (Datalake for Prudential), for collecting banking and insurance prudential data will go into production on April 12, 2021.
BCB announced that the Financial Stability Committee decided to maintain the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for Brazil at 0%, at least until the end of 2021.
EIOPA has launched a European-wide comparative study on non-life underwriting risk in internal models, also kicking-off of the data collection phase.
SRB published an overview of the resolution tools available in the Banking Union and their impact on a bank’s ability to maintain continuity of access to financial market infrastructure services in resolution.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting