FSB published a report that examines the financial stability, regulatory, and governance implications of the use of decentralized financial technologies such as those involving distributed ledgers and online peer-to-peer, or user-matching, platforms. The report suggests that the use of decentralized technologies may entail risks to financial stability. These include the emergence of concentrations in the ownership and operation of key infrastructure and technology as well as a possible greater degree of procyclicality in decentralized risk-taking. Additionally, recovery and resolution of decentralized structures may be more difficult.
The report describes the decentralization of financial services as the elimination—or reduction in the role—of one or more intermediaries or centralized processes that have traditionally been involved in the provision of financial services. In some instances, it can refer to the decentralization of risk-taking away from traditional intermediaries. The report, which has been delivered to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors for their meeting in Fukuoka on June 08-09, focuses on technologies that may reduce or eliminate the need for intermediaries or centralized processes that have traditionally been involved in the provision of financial services. Such decentralization generally takes one of three broad forms—the decentralization of decision-making, risk-taking, or record-keeping. There are already examples emerging of decentralization in payments and settlement, capital markets, trade finance, and lending.
Significant use of decentralized financial technologies may have implications for the effectiveness and enforceability of current regulatory frameworks, particularly where the execution of supervisory and oversight mandates focuses on the presence of centralized decision-making entities (for example, financial intermediaries). A more decentralized financial system may reinforce the importance of an activity-based approach to regulation, particularly where it delivers financial services that are difficult to link to specific entities and/or jurisdictions. Certain technologies may also challenge the technology-neutral approach to regulation taken by some authorities. These issues could continue to be the subject of further consideration by authorities.
As part of the G20 discussion, authorities may wish to consider the implications of decentralized financial technologies for proportional and consistent application of regulation of decentralized financial technologies, financial supervision, and financial regulation and regulatory approaches. Regulators may also wish to engage in further dialog with a wider group of stakeholders, including those in the technology sector that have had limited interaction with financial regulators to date. This should help avoid the emergence of unforeseen complications in the design of decentralized financial technologies at a later stage.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Decentralized Financial Technologies, Proportionalities, DLT, Fintech, Financial Stability, G20, FSB
Previous ArticleFED Releases Scenarios for the CCAR and DFAST Exercises in 2019
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.