Featured Product

    BIS Examines Financial Stability Implications of Market Fragmentation

    October 01, 2019

    BIS published a working paper that examines the financial stability implications of fragmentation in the global financial markets. The paper reviews the degree of fragmentation in various markets and classifies its possible causes. It then reviews whether fragmentation is necessarily detrimental to financial stability, suggesting that various trade-offs exist. The review suggests that reducing fragmentation and enhancing financial stability are, in general, highly likely to be complementary. Still, fragmentation is not necessarily harmful for financial stability. In specific cases, some degree of fragmentation can actually serve to enhance financial stability.

    The paper identifies and reviews the possible causes of fragmentation—namely, natural barriers, market forces, policy actions and interventions other than financial regulatory actions, and financial regulation and its enforcement. The paper then proceeds to review the costs and benefits of fragmentation, mainly from a financial stability perspective, using examples from securities markets, international banking, and asset prices across countries. It concludes that whereas in some cases there appear to be no clear costs to financial stability, in other cases there might be some. The review also suggests there are clearly cases where (some type or degree of) fragmentation can serve to enhance financial stability. The next area covered is how regulation at the global level affects fragmentation. The last section of the paper builds on the analysis to review what actions may be called for. It argues for the need to develop a framework that can help identify cases where there are potential trade-offs.

    Fragmentation may be bad for financial stability. However, fragmentation and financial stability themselves may also be subject to a trade-off. The paper makes the following proposals by way of a more formal approach to review and, possibly, undertake policy actions.

    • The starting point is more thorough analysis. What needs to be assessed here is the overall social costs and benefits of fragmentation and this needs to be done across jurisdictions. The related question is whether the “bad” elements of fragmentation are prone to escalate to the level of systemic risk. A joint assessment of the causes and a possible trade-off could supply us with a menu of policy options.
    • The second step is to select from that menu the options that can reduce fragmentation while improving financial stability. The aim is to identify improvements along the upward sloping part of the “iso-quant” financial-stability-fragmentation curve. All the drivers involved, not just regulation, would need to be assessed. Such a review may well conclude that the answer to many of the outstanding questions is to continue harmonizing regulation and implementation and enhancing information-sharing processes regarding possible policy actions and the like.
    • Another, parallel step would be to encourage the private sector to provide (more of) its own solutions to complement public interventions. There are many examples of the private sector already using cooperative models to address fragmentation at the global level. For example, CLS Bank is playing a role in wholesale cross-border payments. Consideration is being given to developing more such private (interbank) settlement systems. Policymakers can only welcome that and other private sector approaches.
    • A final step is to intervene using the right tools. There are a number of elements to this. One is to choose the most efficient instrument with which to intervene. For example, there can be differences between price- and quantity-related regulations in terms of effectiveness and benefits in the presence of uncertainty. There is also much to learn from private-sector solutions that can be built. Another element is to allow for some state contingency in applying the instrument chosen; for example, barriers to the allocation of liquidity and capital are clearly more costly in times of stress. Analyzing and then addressing these elements will help ensure that the public-sector intervenes not just when necessary, but also with the most effective tools.


    Related Link: Working Paper


    Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Financial Stability, Financial Integration, Regulation and Supervision, Research, Market Fragmentation, Basel III, BIS

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles

    APRA Publishes Results of Climate Risk Self-Assessment Survey

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has published the findings of its latest climate risk self-assessment survey conducted across the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.

    August 04, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    ACPR Publishes Updates Related to CRD IV and Covered Bonds

    The French Prudential Supervisory Authority (ACPR) published a notice related to the methods for calculating and publishing prudential ratios under the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV) and the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL).

    August 03, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    EIOPA Publishes Guidance on Climate Change Scenarios in ORSA

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority (EIOPA) published the risk dashboard based on Solvency II data and the final version of the application guidance on climate change materiality assessments and climate change scenarios in the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA).

    August 02, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    EBA and ECB Respond to Proposals on Sustainability Disclosures

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Central Bank (ECB) published their responses to the consultations of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) on sustainability-related disclosure standards.

    August 01, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    BIS Report Notes Existing Gaps in Climate Risk Data at Central Banks

    A Consultative Group on Risk Management (CGRM) at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published a report that examines incorporation of climate risks into the international reserve management framework.

    July 29, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    EBA Publishes Multiple Regulatory Updates for Regulated Entities

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final guidelines on liquidity requirements exemption for investment firms, updated version of its 5.2 filing rules document for supervisory reporting, and Single Rulebook Question and Answer (Q&A) updates in July 2022.

    July 29, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    EIOPA Issues SII Taxonomy and Guide on Sustainability Preferences

    The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published Version 2.8.0 of the Solvency II data point model (DPM) and XBRL taxonomy.

    July 29, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    EESC Opines on Proposals on CRR and European Single Access Point

    The European Union published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, an opinion from the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC); the opinion is on the proposal for a regulation to amend the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).

    July 29, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    HM Treasury Publishes Multiple Regulatory Updates in July 2022

    HM Treasury published a draft statutory instrument titled “The Financial Services (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022,” along with the related explanatory memorandum and impact assessment.

    July 29, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News

    APRA Consults on Prudential Standard for Operational Risk

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is seeking comments, until October 21, 2022, on the introduction of CPS 230, which is the new cross-industry prudential standard on operational risk management.

    July 28, 2022 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 8422