Featured Product

    Claudia Buch of Bundesbank on Evaluating Financial Sector Reforms

    June 12, 2017

    Claudia Buch, Deputy President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, took part in the panel discussion on "Improving Financial Resilience," at the T20 Summit "Global Solutions" in Berlin on May 30, 2017. She discussed the evaluation of effectiveness of financial sector reforms as a joint task for academia and policymakers, based on transparency, international coordination, and independent assessments.

    She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

     

    She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

     

    Related Link: Speech (PDF)

    Keywords: International, BIS, Financial Reforms, Bundesbank, Regulatory Reform, Banking, Securities, Insurance



    She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

     

    She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

     

    Related Link: Speech (PDF)

    She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

     

    She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

     

    Related Link: Speech (PDF)

    She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

     

    She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

     

    Related Link: Speech (PDF)

    She discussed the proposed framework of FSB for evaluating financial reforms and highlighted that an effective framework for evaluation of post-crisis financial sector reforms is lacking at the global level. Policy evaluation needs to be part of a structured policy process involving four steps: specifying the objectives of reforms, defining intermediate targets, calibrating instruments and assessing the expected impact, and assessing the impact post implementation. This is the gap that the FSB framework is about to close. It is about answering the question of whether the reforms have achieved their intended outcomes, whether they work together as intended, and whether they have had material unintended consequences. Such side effects may have to be addressed, but without compromising on the objectives of the reforms or by reducing resilience. The framework provides a common understanding of the elements required for a “good” policy evaluation and it will provide a basis for an informed and evidence-based discussion on regulatory policies. To address challenges of policy evaluation, she suggests investigating whether a reform caused an outcome (attribution), whether a reform had similar effects across markets and jurisdictions (heterogeneity), and whether it achieved its overall objective (general equilibrium).

     

    She also emphasized that both academics and policymakers would benefit from engaging in better policy evaluations. Academia could engage in developing methodologies and in studying designs that contribute to societal welfare, without compromising on academic rigor. Policymakers could draw on the rich expertise that is available and make better use of existing infrastructures. Moreover, some of the mechanisms that have been developed in academia to mitigate misaligned incentives and ensure transparency are readily applicable to policy evaluations. She said that policy evaluation means being transparent about the goals of regulatory policies and what these policies have actually achieved. Setting standards, learning from good practices, and international coordination are also vital. The FSB, in coordination with international standard setting bodies, can play an important role in this regard. "Its proposal for a framework for policy evaluation comes at the right time and addresses the right issues." Finally, she also looked at the need for independent, objective assessments to obtain an unbiased picture on the effects of reforms, highlighting that appropriate institutional arrangements such as peer reviews, independence from policy groups, and direct reporting lines need to be in place.

     

    Related Link: Speech (PDF)

    Related Articles
    News

    MAS Amends Notice 610 on Reporting Templates for Banks in Singapore

    MAS published amendments to Notices 610 and 1003 related to submission of statistics and returns, along with the reporting templates and frequently asked questions (FAQs) associated with these Notices.

    January 24, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Updates Policy Module on Supervisory Review Process

    HKMA is issuing, by notice in the Gazette, revised versions of two Supervisory Policy Manual modules as statutory guidelines under section 7(3) of the Banking Ordinance. The Supervisory Policy Manual modules are CA-G-5 on “Supervisory Review Process” and SB-2 on “Leveraged Foreign Exchange Trading.”

    January 24, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Amends Pillar 2 Capital Framework for Banks

    PRA published the policy statement PS2/20 that contains the final amendments to the Pillar 2 framework and provides feedback to responses to the consultation paper CP5/19 on updates related to Pillar 2 capital framework.

    January 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS Survey Examines Progress of Central Banks Toward Digital Currency

    BIS published a paper that presents the results of a survey that asked central banks how their plans are developing in the area of central bank digital currency (CBDC).

    January 23, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED Proposes to Revise Information Collection Under Market Risk Rule

    FED proposed to revise and extend, for three years, FR 4201, which is the information collection under the market risk capital rule.

    January 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    HKMA Consults on Stay Rules on Financial Contracts Under FIRO

    HKMA published proposals for making rules related to contractual stays on termination rights in financial contracts for authorized institutions under FIRO or the Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628).

    January 22, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Amends Notices on Minimum Liquid Asset Requirements for Banks

    MAS published amendments to Notices 1015, 613, and 649 related to the minimum liquid assets (MLA) requirements.

    January 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Publishes Submission on Fintech and Regtech

    APRA published its submission, to the Senate Select Committee, on financial technology and regulatory technology.

    January 21, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI to Implement Operational Risk Capital Rules for Banks in Q1 2022

    OSFI decided to move domestic implementation of the revised Basel III operational risk capital requirements from the first quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2022.

    January 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ECB Consults on Guideline on Threshold for Credit Obligations Past Due

    ECB published a draft guideline, along with the frequently asked questions (FAQs), on the definition of the materiality threshold for credit obligations past due for less significant institutions.

    January 20, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4541