BIS published a report on the fintech data issues based on a 2019 survey conducted by the Irving Fisher Committee on Central Bank Statistics (IFC). In view of the varying impact of fintech across countries and financial sub-sectors, it is essential to ensure that central bank statistics remain comprehensive, accurate, and timely so that they can effectively support policy. The IFC survey focused on four major themes—data demands among central bank users, data gaps, ongoing data collection exercises, and initiatives for further improvement. The report highlights that, to close the identified data gaps, it is key that fintech entities be adequately covered in the statistical reporting perimeter.
Regarding the central bank statisticians and their need for high-quality data to support policy making, fintech gives rise to a number of issues. To shed light on these issues, IFC conducted a survey among its members in 2019. The survey reveals a significant need for fintech data among central bank users, with the strongest requests expressed by the units in charge of payment systems. Information demands are particularly high in the jurisdictions where fintech is most developed. Users are typically interested in lists of fintech entities and on statistics on fintech credit. A key confirmation of the survey is that fintech is creating important data gaps:
- Fintech firms can be classified outside the financial sector if, for instance, they were initially set up as IT companies; such classification issues can be reinforced by the fact that these firms are often small, diverse, and not easy to identify.
- Another issue relates to the lack of granularity of the current statistical framework, since major data collection exercises group together non-bank financial institutions.
- Traditional financial institutions have been embracing innovation by sponsoring technological startups treated as directly controlled affiliates, implying that their fintech activities are blurred in consolidated groups’ reports.
- A large majority of central banks (more than 80%) consider that adjusting reporting requirements as well as collecting instrument-level data on fintech loans (for example, peer-to-peer) and fintech firms’ financial statements would be “very or at least normally helpful.”
To close these data gaps, it is key that fintech entities be adequately covered in the statistical reporting perimeter. Currently, central banks are applying this principle in an ad hoc manner, by assessing new fintech firms on a case-by-case basis in close cooperation with other domestic authorities. A number of initiatives perceived as potentially important, such as adjusting reporting requirements or collecting loan-level data, are implemented in only a limited number of jurisdictions, possibly reflecting their high implementation costs. Official business classification systems should be revisited to ensure that firms engaged in financial intermediation are systematically classified in the financial sector.
Half of the central banks have launched initiatives to close data gaps. The majority of central banks report regular cooperation with other domestic authorities, which is essential to adequately cover fintech firms in official statistical frameworks. There is also a demand for stronger international coordination, not least to enhance classification standards and develop harmonized cross-country statistics, a precondition for any meaningful analysis of the impact of fintech firms on the global financial system.
Related Link: Report (PDF)
Keywords: International, Banking, IFC, Statistics, Big Data, Fintech, Data Gaps, Data Collection, BIS
Previous ArticleBIS Paper Examines Variability in Risk-Weighted Assets of Banks
The European Banking Authority (EBA) proposed implementing technical standards on the interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) reporting requirements, with the comment period ending on May 02, 2023.
The U.S. Federal Reserve Board (FED) set out details of the pilot climate scenario analysis exercise to be conducted among the six largest U.S. bank holding companies.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) adopted the final rule on Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published an updated list of supervised entities, a report on the supervision of less significant institutions (LSIs), a statement on macro-prudential policy.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published a circular on the prudential treatment of crypto-asset exposures, an update on the status of transition to new interest rate benchmarks.
The European Commission (EC) adopted the standards addressing supervisory reporting of risk concentrations and intra-group transactions, benchmarking of internal approaches, and authorization of credit institutions.
The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC) issued rules to manage the risk of off-balance sheet business of commercial banks and rules on corporate governance of financial institutions.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) made announcements to address sustainability issues in the financial sector.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published regulatory standards on identification of a group of connected clients (GCC) as well as updated the lists of identified financial conglomerates.
The General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), at its December meeting, issued an updated risk assessment via the quarterly risk dashboard and held discussions on key policy priorities to address the systemic risks in the European Union.