Featured Product

    BIS Bulletin Examines Regulatory Framework for Big Tech Firms

    August 02, 2021

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a Bulletin that reviews the policy challenges for central banks and financial regulators in their oversight of the activity of big tech firms in financial services. In addition to traditional policy concerns such as financial risks, consumer protection, and operational resilience, the entry of big tech firms into financial services gives rise to new policy challenges surrounding the concentration of market power and data governance. To address these policy challenges, the authors endorse complementing the existing activity-based framework with specific entity-based rules, as proposed in several key jurisdictions—notably the European Union, China, and the United States.

    Big tech firms entering financial services can scale up rapidly with user data from their existing business lines in e-commerce and social media and by harnessing the inherent network effects in digital services. The authors proposes that entry of big tech firms into financial services necessitates close coordination on the part of the central bank with data governance regulators. Areas where central banks and data governance authorities can usefully contribute their respective analyses include open banking and other data portability rules, protocols regarding data transfers, and role of public infrastructure. Central banks and regulators can assess whether there are asymmetries between banks and big tech firms regarding data access. and whether differential regulatory treatment of data for different institutions creates competitive, consumer protection, or systemic concerns. The current framework for regulation in financial services outside the banking and insurance sectors follows an activities-based approach where providers must hold licenses for specific business lines. Activities-based regulation is grounded on the principle of “same activity, same regulation.” However, given the unique set of challenges that are thrown up by big tech firms’ entry into financial services, a purely activity-based framework for regulation is likely to fall short of an adequate response to these policy challenges, argue the authors. Thus, there is scope to address the policy challenges of big tech firms by developing specific entity-based rules that complement activities-based requirements. 

    Elements of an entity-based approach for big tech firms are already taking root in several key jurisdictions—notably in the European Union, China, and the United States. These initiatives have been led mainly by competition authorities and legislatures, but the issues they raise impinge deeply on the mission of central banks and financial regulators. In the European Union, the proposed Digital Markets Act has specific requirements on the conduct of firms that are considered to be “gate keepers." In China, the State Council, especially the State Administration for Market Regulation, issued anti-monopoly guidelines for “internet platforms” and the People’s Bank of China introduced rules preventing restrictive practices by non-bank payment service providers. In the United States, the US House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law released an antitrust report with recommendations to reduce anti-competitive behavior of big tech firms, followed by several legislative initiatives that are under discussion. What these recent proposals have in common are provisions aimed at preventing data concentration and anti-competitive practices by big tech firms. For central banks, a natural follow-up to such initiatives would be to study the potential systemic relevance of big tech firms and the need to introduce specific safeguards to guarantee sufficient operational resilience. Given the multi-faceted nature of the public policy challenges that extend to competition and data governance imperatives, central banks and financial regulators should invest with urgency in monitoring and understanding these developments. This will prepare them to act quickly when needed. Cooperation with other domestic authorities and with counterparts in other jurisdictions will be also important in this regard. 


    Related Links

    Keywords: International, Banking, Bigtech, Regtech, Fintech, Activities Based Approach, Entity Based Approach, Operational Resilience, Platform Business, Open Banking, Data Governance, BIS

    Related Articles

    FINMA Approves Merger of Credit Suisse and UBS

    The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has approved the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS.

    March 21, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BOE Sets Out Its Thinking on Regulatory Capital and Climate Risks

    The Bank of England (BOE) published a working paper that aims to understand the climate-related disclosures of UK financial institutions.

    March 13, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    OSFI Finalizes on Climate Risk Guideline, Issues Other Updates

    The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is seeking comments, until May 31, 2023, on the draft guideline on culture and behavior risk, with final guideline expected by the end of 2023.

    March 12, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    APRA Assesses Macro-Prudential Policy Settings, Issues Other Updates

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published an information paper that assesses its macro-prudential policy settings aimed at promoting stability at a systemic level.

    March 07, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BIS Paper Examines Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Lending

    BIS issued a paper that investigates the effect of the greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions of firms on bank loans using bank–firm matched data of Japanese listed firms from 2006 to 2018.

    March 03, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    HMT Mulls Alignment of Ring-Fencing and Resolution Regimes for Banks

    The HM Treasury (HMT) is seeking evidence, until May 07, 2023, on practicalities of aligning the ring-fencing and the banking resolution regimes for banks.

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    MFSA Sets Out Supervisory Priorities, Issues Reporting Updates

    The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) outlined its supervisory priorities for 2023

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    German Regulators Issue Multiple Reporting Updates for Banks

    Deutsche Bundesbank published the nationally deactivated validation rules for the German Commercial Code (HGB) users on the taxonomy 3.2, which became valid from December 31, 2022

    March 02, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    BCBS Report Examines Impact of Basel III Framework for Banks

    The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published results of the Basel III monitoring exercise based on the June 30, 2022 data.

    February 28, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News

    PRA Consults on Prudential Rules for "Simpler-Regime" Firms

    Among the recent regulatory updates from UK authorities, a key development is the first-phase consultation, from the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), on simplifications to the prudential framework that would apply to the simpler-regime firms.

    February 28, 2023 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8806