International Survey Of Integrated Financial Sector Supervision

Despite the intense debate on the advantages and disadvantages of adopting integrated supervision that has taken place in recent years, little is known about the experiences of countries that have adopted it and the obstacles and challenges they have faced to implement it. In an attempt to shed light on this area, the authors present the results of a survey conducted in a group of 15 countries that have adopted integrated supervision. After a brief review of the literature on integrated supervision, the authors examine four topics: 1) The reasons cited by this group of countries for establishing an integrated supervisory agency. 2) The scope of regulatory and supervisory powers of these agencies. 3) The progress of these agencies in harmonizing their regulatory and supervisory practices across the intermediaries they supervise. 4) The practical problems faced by policymakers in adopting integrated supervision. The survey revealed that the group of integrated supervisory agencies is not as homogeneous as it seems. Important differences arise with regard to the scope of regulatory and supervisory powers the agencies have been given. In fact, contrary to popular belief, less than 50 percent of the agencies can be categorized as mega-supervisors. Another finding is that in most countries progress toward the harmonization of prudential regulation and supervision across financial intermediaries remains limited. Interestingly, the survey revealed that practically all countries believe they have achieved a higher degree of harmonization in the regulation and supervision of banks and securities companies than between banks and insurance firms. The survey also identified some practical problems faced by this group of countries in establishing their unified supervisory agencies. The authors discuss these problems, along with the practical lessons and recommendations provided by the 15 agencies to other countries considering integrated supervision, in the final section of the paper.

Despite the intense debate on the advantages and disadvantages of adopting integrated supervision that has taken place in recent years, little is known about the experiences of countries that have adopted it and the obstacles and challenges they have faced to implement it. In an attempt to shed light on this area, de Luna Martinez and Rose present the results of a survey conducted in a group of 15 countries that have adopted integrated supervision. After a brief review of the literature on integrated supervision, the authors examine four topics:- The reasons cited by this group of countries for establishing an integrated supervisory agency.- The scope of regulatory and supervisory powers of these agencies.- The progress of these agencies in harmonizing their regulatory and supervisory practices across the intermediaries they supervise.- The practical problems faced by policymakers in adopting integrated supervision.The survey revealed that the group of integrated supervisory agencies is not as homogeneous as it seems. Important differences arise with regard to the scope of regulatory and supervisory powers the agencies have been given. In fact, contrary to popular belief, less than 50 percent of the agencies can be categorized as mega-supervisors. Another finding is that in most countries progress toward the harmonization of prudential regulation and supervision across financial intermediaries remains limited. Interestingly, the survey revealed that practically all countries believe they have achieved a higher degree of harmonization in the regulation and supervision of banks and securities companies than between banks and insurance firms. The survey also identified some practical problems faced by this group of countries in establishing their unified supervisory agencies. The authors discuss these problems, along with the practical lessons and recommendations provided by the 15 agencies to other countries considering integrated supervision, in the final section of the paper.This paper - a product of Financial Sector Operations and Policy Department - is part of a larger effort in the department to analyze recent developments in financial sector regulation and supervision.

Over the past two decades, there has been a clear trend toward integrating the regulation and supervision of banks, nonbank financial institutions, and securities markets. This paper reviews the international experience with integrated supervision. We survey the theoretical arguments for and against the integrated supervisory model, and use data on compliance with international standards to assess the validity of some of these arguments. We find that (i) full integration is associated with higher quality of supervision in insurance and securities and greater consistency of supervision across sectors, after controlling for the level of development; and (ii) fully integrated supervision is not associated with a significant reduction in supervisory staff.

This report summarizes the assessment of Liechtenstein's compliance with internationally accepted standards for the regulatory and supervisory arrangements of the financial sector. It provides detailed assessments of Liechtenstein’s implementation of international supervisory and regulatory standards relative to the Basel Core Principles (BCP) for effective banking supervision, International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) core principles for insurance Supervision, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation, and Financial Action Task Force Recommendations for antimoney laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.

This paper informs the Executive Board of the staff-level understandings reached with global Standard Setting Bodies (SSBs) on the use of the three financial sector supervisory standards in FSAPs: the Basel Committee’s Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision (BCP), set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS); the Insurance Core Principles (ICP), set by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS); and the Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation (Principles), set by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). As graded assessments of compliance with supervisory standards are voluntary, FSAPs have adopted a flexible approach to the use of supervisory standards. A standard is either assessed in full, resulting in grades, or used as the basis for a deeper analysis of selected elements of the oversight framework in a focused review, without grades. The SSBs and Fund staff have reached understandings on a refinement of the existing flexible approach, with sets of “base principles” serving as the starting points for focused reviews.

This paper reviews Financial Sector Regulation and Supervision for Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI). The TCI has a structure for financial supervision that encompasses banking, insurance, mutual funds, investment brokers, trusts, trustees, companies' registration, and company service providers. The supervisory framework has undergone major modifications since 2000, but further strengthening of the legal and institutional framework is needed. The Financial Services Commission has been transformed into a statutory body and given additional autonomous powers for supervision. Underlying financial ordinances have been amended to bring them more in line with international standards.

As an European Union (EU) Member State, Romania is subject and aligned to the EU common regulatory framework for banking supervision. The EU regulatory framework for banking supervision has been subject to significant changes since the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent sovereign debt crisis. The adoption of the Capital Requirements Regulation and the Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRR/CRD IV) which forms the Single Rule Book was an important step towards stronger prudential regulation. Given that a large part of Romania’s banking system is owned by Eurozone banks, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), as the home supervisor for Eurozone banks, is a key partner of the National Bank of Romania (NBR). Prudential regulations of the NBR are broadly aligned to the requirements of the Basel Core Principles (BCP). As of 2017, the NBR has identified 11 banks as systematically important, of which 8 are supervised at group level by the SSM.

International financial integration has greatly increased the scope for changes in a country's net foreign asset position through the valuation channel, namely capital gains and losses on external assets and liabilities. We examine this valuation channel in a dynamic equilibrium portfolio model with international trade in equity. By separating asset prices and quantities, we can characterize the first-order dynamics of valuation effects and the current account in macroeconomic dynamics. Specifically, we disentangle the roles of excess returns, capital gains, and portfolio adjustment for consumption risk sharing when financial markets are incomplete.