The Disruption of the Prudential Regulatory Framework

IF 2 Q1 LAW Journal of Financial Regulation Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI:10.1093/jfr/fjz009
P. Siciliani
{"title":"The Disruption of the Prudential Regulatory Framework","authors":"P. Siciliani","doi":"10.1093/jfr/fjz009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article first explores how the prudential regulatory framework may be drastically changed as a result of the adoption of regtech and suptech innovations. The adoption of a shared data architecture, whereby the regulator is provided with seamless access to the accounts of regulated firms, may result in the development of a centralized approach to regulatory modelling, thus bypassing the existing partition between internal models and standardized approaches. Secondly, this article discusses how, thanks to the adoption of advanced predictive analytics, non-bank fintech lenders can gain insights into borrowers’ creditworthiness irrespective of banks’ control over traditional sources of information for credit scoring. This, though, may give rise to a new type of strategic gaming, this time by borrowers keen to maximize their chances of being granted a loan. In any case, preventing banks from adopting these new methods for the purpose of regulatory modelling might weaken their competitiveness. Thirdly, this article explores whether the transition to a centralized approach for credit risk management would conflate the distinction between microprudential and macroprudential interventions, in particular with respect to the countercyclical macroprudential policy. Finally, the article argues that non-bank (fintech) firms could be persuaded to coalesce behind endorsement of the new regulatory shared data platform in return for the support from the central bank. In this way, the regulatory perimeter could be extended in order to steer the adoption of financial innovations in a manner that benefits society overall.","PeriodicalId":42830,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jfr/fjz009","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjz009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article first explores how the prudential regulatory framework may be drastically changed as a result of the adoption of regtech and suptech innovations. The adoption of a shared data architecture, whereby the regulator is provided with seamless access to the accounts of regulated firms, may result in the development of a centralized approach to regulatory modelling, thus bypassing the existing partition between internal models and standardized approaches. Secondly, this article discusses how, thanks to the adoption of advanced predictive analytics, non-bank fintech lenders can gain insights into borrowers’ creditworthiness irrespective of banks’ control over traditional sources of information for credit scoring. This, though, may give rise to a new type of strategic gaming, this time by borrowers keen to maximize their chances of being granted a loan. In any case, preventing banks from adopting these new methods for the purpose of regulatory modelling might weaken their competitiveness. Thirdly, this article explores whether the transition to a centralized approach for credit risk management would conflate the distinction between microprudential and macroprudential interventions, in particular with respect to the countercyclical macroprudential policy. Finally, the article argues that non-bank (fintech) firms could be persuaded to coalesce behind endorsement of the new regulatory shared data platform in return for the support from the central bank. In this way, the regulatory perimeter could be extended in order to steer the adoption of financial innovations in a manner that benefits society overall.
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
审慎监管框架的瓦解
本文首先探讨了审慎监管框架如何因采用监管科技和监管科技创新而发生巨大变化。通过采用共享数据架构,监管机构可以无缝访问受监管公司的账户,这可能会导致开发一种集中的监管建模方法,从而绕过内部模型和标准化方法之间的现有划分。其次,本文讨论了由于采用了先进的预测分析,非银行金融科技贷款机构如何能够洞察借款人的信誉,而不考虑银行对信用评分的传统信息来源的控制。然而,这可能会引发一种新型的战略博弈,这一次是借款人热衷于最大化他们获得贷款的机会。无论如何,阻止银行采用这些新方法来建立监管模型,可能会削弱它们的竞争力。第三,本文探讨了向集中式信贷风险管理方法的过渡是否会混淆微观审慎和宏观审慎干预之间的区别,特别是在反周期宏观审慎政策方面。最后,文章认为非银行(金融科技)公司可以被说服联合起来支持新的监管共享数据平台,以换取中央银行的支持。通过这种方式,可以扩大监管范围,以引导金融创新以有利于整个社会的方式被采用。
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
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Security in Central Banking Enhancing Repo Market Transparency: The EU Securities Financing Transactions Regulation Correction to: Could it Happen in the EU? An Analysis of Loss Distributionbetween Shareholders and AT1 Bondholders under EU Law Ten Years of the Single Supervisory Mechanism: Looking into the Past, Navigating into the Future “Tis new to thee’: response to Gruenewald, Knijp, Schoenmaker, and van Tilburg
×
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