CPMI and IOSCO published a Level 2 assessment report on the implementation monitoring of Principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI) in Brazil. The assessment concludes that the legal, regulatory, and oversight frameworks, as of May 31, 2018, for the financial market infrastructures in Brazil are complete and "consistent" (the highest rating) with the PFMI. The possible rating levels are “Consistent,” “Broadly consistent,” “Partly consistent," “Not consistent,” and “Not applicable.” The report makes recommendations where any minor gaps have been identified or where the framework could be further improved.
The Brazil-adopted measures applicable to systemically important payment systems, central securities depositories, securities settlement systems, central counterparties, and trade repositories were found to be complete and consistent with the PFMI. Notwithstanding the consistent ratings for this assessment, the Assessment Team is of the view that the Brazilian regulatory regime for financial market infrastructures can be further strengthened. At a minimum, this could be done by providing public clarity on the hierarchy between the pre-existing regulations and the new implementation measures. The Brazilian authorities may also wish to consider measures that incorporate explicit references to the PFMI in all relevant regulations or Instructions. Translation was also a complicating factor in assessing the legal, regulatory and oversight frameworks for financial market infrastructures in Brazil.
However, the Assessment Team concluded that any gaps, with respect to the pre-existing regulations and the PFMI, are addressed by virtue of the policy statements of BCB. This position was founded on three items: the strength of the policy statements, overlap in the responsibilities of the authorities, and confirmation through supervisory evidence. A more detailed assessment, including citations of the relevant legislation, regulation, policy, and guidance, and notes explaining the assigned ratings, has been provided in the online CPMI-IOSCO PFMI Level 2 implementation database. The report presents a table that covers the identified gaps and recommendations. The assessment was conducted as a peer review from July 2018 to December 2019. The relevant Brazilian authorities for the assessment were BCB and Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil (CVM), as they are responsible for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of financial market infrastructures in Brazil. The rating framework used in Level 2 assessments is an adaptation of the approach described in the PFMI Assessment Methodology.
Keywords: Americas, Brazil, Banking, Securities, PFMI, Level 2 Assessment, Implementation Monitoring, Systemic Risk, FMI, CPMI, IOSCO
Across 35 years in banking, Blake has gained deep insights into the inner working of this sector. Over the last two decades, Blake has been an Operating Committee member, leading teams and executing strategies in Credit and Enterprise Risk as well as Line of Business. His focus over this time has been primarily Commercial/Corporate with particular emphasis on CRE. Blake has spent most of his career with large and mid-size banks. Blake joined Moody’s Analytics in 2021 after leading the transformation of the credit approval and reporting process at a $25 billion bank.
Previous ArticleHKMA Enhances Cybersecurity Fortification Initiative
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.