The regulation of RegTech and SupTech in finance: ensuring consistency in principle and in practice

IF 2 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Pub Date : 2022-07-08 DOI:10.1108/jfrc-01-2022-0004
Jonathan McCarthy
{"title":"The regulation of RegTech and SupTech in finance: ensuring consistency in principle and in practice","authors":"Jonathan McCarthy","doi":"10.1108/jfrc-01-2022-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe paper’s aim is to consider how best to formulate sturdy regulatory frameworks for RegTech and SupTech. The paper appraises how key features of EU and UK regulatory and policy initiatives can contribute to a functional framework for RegTech and SupTech.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe paper refers to the most comprehensive empirical findings within the EU and the UK on RegTech and SupTech, including reports released by the European Banking Authority and the Bank of England. As data is only gradually becoming available about the true rate of adoption of RegTech and SupTech, the paper identifies salient areas that warrant analysis from emerging findings. In light of the relatively restricted sources of empirical data, the article’s methodological approach is directed towards the most wide-ranging and detailed sources that are currently available at EU and UK levels.\n\n\nFindings\nThe paper reveals distinct variations in how the EU and UK have pursued regulatory approaches towards RegTech and SupTech growth. However, there are many shared features in the respective approaches. The paper argues that a regulatory framework should ideally be imbued with overarching strategies and policy objectives, as well as with practical measures through innovation facilitators, such as sandboxes. Yet, legislative (top-down) intervention will be the significant ingredient in guaranteeing legal clarity for RegTech and SupTech.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nBy understanding the nuances in EU and UK approaches, the paper advocates for pragmatic reasoning when formulating a regulatory response. The importance of the article is in its focus on the elements of EU and UK regulatory approaches that are most capable of guaranteeing clarity on standards relating to RegTech and SupTech. The paper makes a vital contribution to existing commentary by determining how a balance can be struck between “top-down” and “bottom-up” types of regulation (i.e. should regulation be entirely concerned with industry-driven standards, such as codes of conduct?).\n","PeriodicalId":44814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-01-2022-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose The paper’s aim is to consider how best to formulate sturdy regulatory frameworks for RegTech and SupTech. The paper appraises how key features of EU and UK regulatory and policy initiatives can contribute to a functional framework for RegTech and SupTech. Design/methodology/approach The paper refers to the most comprehensive empirical findings within the EU and the UK on RegTech and SupTech, including reports released by the European Banking Authority and the Bank of England. As data is only gradually becoming available about the true rate of adoption of RegTech and SupTech, the paper identifies salient areas that warrant analysis from emerging findings. In light of the relatively restricted sources of empirical data, the article’s methodological approach is directed towards the most wide-ranging and detailed sources that are currently available at EU and UK levels. Findings The paper reveals distinct variations in how the EU and UK have pursued regulatory approaches towards RegTech and SupTech growth. However, there are many shared features in the respective approaches. The paper argues that a regulatory framework should ideally be imbued with overarching strategies and policy objectives, as well as with practical measures through innovation facilitators, such as sandboxes. Yet, legislative (top-down) intervention will be the significant ingredient in guaranteeing legal clarity for RegTech and SupTech. Originality/value By understanding the nuances in EU and UK approaches, the paper advocates for pragmatic reasoning when formulating a regulatory response. The importance of the article is in its focus on the elements of EU and UK regulatory approaches that are most capable of guaranteeing clarity on standards relating to RegTech and SupTech. The paper makes a vital contribution to existing commentary by determining how a balance can be struck between “top-down” and “bottom-up” types of regulation (i.e. should regulation be entirely concerned with industry-driven standards, such as codes of conduct?).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
RegTech和SupTech在金融领域的监管:确保原则和实践的一致性
目的本文的目的是考虑如何最好地为RegTech和SupTech制定强有力的监管框架。本文评估了欧盟和英国监管和政策举措的关键特征如何有助于RegTech和SupTech的功能框架。设计/方法/方法本文参考了欧盟和欧盟内部关于RegTech和苏pTech的最全面的实证结果,包括欧洲银行管理局和英格兰银行发布的报告。由于RegTech和SupTech的真实采用率数据才逐渐可用,该论文从新发现中确定了值得分析的突出领域。鉴于经验数据的来源相对有限,本文的方法论方法针对目前欧盟和英国层面上最广泛、最详细的来源。发现这篇论文揭示了欧盟和英国对RegTech和SupTech增长的监管方式存在明显差异。然而,在各自的方法中有许多共同的特点。该文件认为,理想情况下,监管框架应包含总体战略和政策目标,以及通过沙盒等创新促进者采取的实际措施。然而,立法(自上而下)干预将是保证RegTech和SupTech法律清晰性的重要因素。原始性/价值通过理解欧盟和英国方法的细微差别,本文主张在制定监管回应时进行务实推理。这篇文章的重要性在于它关注的是欧盟和英国监管方法的要素,这些要素最有能力保证RegTech和SupTech相关标准的明确性。该文件通过确定如何在“自上而下”和“自下而上”的监管类型之间取得平衡,对现有评论做出了重要贡献(即监管是否应完全关注行业驱动的标准,如行为准则?)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1992, the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance has provided an authoritative and scholarly platform for international research in financial regulation and compliance. The journal is at the intersection between academic research and the practice of financial regulation, with distinguished past authors including senior regulators, central bankers and even a Prime Minister. Financial crises, predatory practices, internationalization and integration, the increased use of technology and financial innovation are just some of the changes and issues that contemporary financial regulators are grappling with. These challenges and changes hold profound implications for regulation and compliance, ranging from macro-prudential to consumer protection policies. The journal seeks to illuminate these issues, is pluralistic in approach and invites scholarly papers using any appropriate methodology. Accordingly, the journal welcomes submissions from finance, law, economics and interdisciplinary perspectives. A broad spectrum of research styles, sources of information and topics (e.g. banking laws and regulations, stock market and cross border regulation, risk assessment and management, training and competence, competition law, case law, compliance and regulatory updates and guidelines) are appropriate. All submissions are double-blind refereed and judged on academic rigour, originality, quality of exposition and relevance to policy and practice. Once accepted, individual articles are typeset, proofed and published online as the Version of Record within an average of 32 days, so that articles can be downloaded and cited earlier.
期刊最新文献
CBDCs, regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets under the Basel Committee rules on cryptoassets All are interesting to invest, I fear of missing out (FOMO): a comparative study among self-employed and salaried investors A law and economic analysis of trading through dark pools Financial liberalisation and illicit financial outflows in African countries: does institutional quality and macroeconomic stability matter? Crossing the lines a human approach to improving the effectiveness of the three lines model in practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1