IOSCO published a series of eleven good practices on processes for deference to assist regulatory authorities in mitigating the risk of unintended, regulatory-driven market fragmentation and to strengthen international cooperation. The aim of the good practices identified in the report is to help members in establishing and operating efficient deference processes. They are underpinned by the philosophy that deference processes should be outcomes-based, risk-sensitive, transparent, sufficiently flexible, and supported by strong cooperation. IOSCO drew on the experience of the EC and members of the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI)-IOSCO to develop these good practices.
Over time, the use of deference between regulators has significantly increased, in parallel with enhanced cross-border capital flows. In June 2019, IOSCO published a report on market fragmentation and cross-border regulation, suggesting that it should identify good practices to enhance the processes for deference determinations further. The good practices identified in the report cover all phases of deference assessments—from the initial stages to the processes put in place once an assessment determination has been made. These practices focus on several key issues, including the following:
- Arrangements for ensuring transparency of deference processes, including the scope, steps, and criteria
- The criteria for making an outcomes-based assessment of the assessed authority and/or firm, including the nature of the supervisory and enforcement practices in the assessed jurisdiction
- Important factors such as the nature and degree of risks that entities from another jurisdiction may pose in their markets
- The level of engagement, cooperation, and communication between the assessing authority and the assessed authority and/or firm throughout the process and once deference has been granted
- Revocation of a deference determination
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Good Practices, Deference Processes, Cross-Border Activities, Market Fragmentation, Systemic Risk, IOSCO
Previous ArticleIASB Decides on Effective Date for Phase 2 Benchmark Reform Proposal
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) revised the Supervisory Policy Manual module CG-5 that sets out guidelines on a sound remuneration system for authorized institutions.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final guidelines on the monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects on the establishment of intermediate parent undertakings in European Union (EU), as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD).
In a recent Market Notice, the Bank of England (BoE) confirmed that green gilts will have equivalent eligibility to existing gilts in its market operations.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the policy statement PS21/9 on implementation of the Investment Firms Prudential Regime.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) proposed regulatory technical standards that set out criteria for identifying shadow banking entities for the purpose of reporting large exposures.
The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) proposed a set of recommendations on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and data providers.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published recommendations from the Working Group on Euro Risk-Free Rates (RFR) on the switch to risk-free rates in the interdealer market.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published a paper as well as an article in the July Macroprudential Bulletin, both of which offer insights on the assessment of the impact of Basel III finalization package on the euro area.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) published a paper that explores the impact of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) on the trading of carbon certificates.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the remuneration policy self-assessment templates and tables on strengthening accountability.