EMEA Centre for Regulatory Strategy in Financial Services UK
- Select a blog category
The UK has voted to leave the European Union (EU). Uncertainty in financial markets and among the business community is understandably very high. Today, there are many more unknowns than knowns – especially about how financial services firms operating in the UK will access and trade with the EU’s Single Market in future.
The introduction of multiple reporting requirements under different regulations and on different timelines should prompt banks and investment firms to think strategically when implementing regulatory changes and when improving existing reporting processes. In particular, they should consider the potential overlaps and synergies across these reporting requirements, assess the capabilities of their current practices and IT infrastructure, and work out how they can capitalise on the use of reporting data for their own purposes.
Despite the many years that have passed since the global financial crisis, its causes and consequences continue to demand attention from industry and policymakers alike.
In recent papers1, the Basel Committee (BCBS) has proposed a number of changes to the scope and use of internal modelled approaches. Taken together, they represent a tectonic shift in banks’ ability to use internal models for regulatory capital purposes:
Culture in financial services firms has moved towards the top of the agenda for regulators, investors and consumers in the wake of excessive risk-taking by some firms in the run-up to the financial crisis and a string of misconduct scandals. Despite this, there can be a tendency on the part of some in the industry to see culture as “someone else’s problem”. A Deloitte survey on culture in banking carried out in 2013 found that 65% of senior bankers believed there were significant cultural failings across the industry, while only 33% believed the same of their own bank.
The FCA published its 2016-17 Business Plan on 5 April. The document is shorter and less detailed than in previous years, with only a brief Risk Outlook section, and makes limited announcements of new work. This may reflect the fact that the new CEO, Andrew Bailey, will not join the FCA until July, although as a member of the FCA Board, he will already have had an opportunity to influence the Plan. Like last year, the FCA has continued with its magic number of seven priority areas, rolling over five areas and prioritising two new areas – wholesale markets and the provision of advice.
When the EU launched the Banking Union, the ultimate objective of the project was to be able to share risks between countries, rather than retain them at the national level. It is an aspiration that faces many complex political challenges, including the trade-off necessarily made by countries involved between risk sharing and risk reduction. The current EU debate on European deposit insurance, the so-called third pillar of the Banking Union, and the sovereign exposures of banks, reflects precisely such a compromise.
Last week, the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) recommended that banks sell their shares in the main UK central payments infrastructure provider, VocaLink, to encourage competition.
Following months of speculation, the European Commission published yesterday (10 February) legislative proposals to delay both the MiFID II and MiFIR implementation dates by a year to 3 January 2018. This is an important development. The delay will apply to the package in full, rather than in part, and is deemed necessary due to the “magnitude” of the data challenges.
New investor protection rules under MiFID II are set to reshape investment managers’ product and distribution strategies in Europe. As the impact of the changes will vary across countries and distribution channels, there is no single optimal approach for firms to adopt. Investment managers distributing funds across the EU will need to think carefully about their strategy in each market. Innovative solutions around online platforms and robo-advice may offer some answers. While the final details of the rules are still pending, policymakers are considering a potential delay of the MiFID II go-live date until 2018. But firms still need to prepare now to be ready in time.