- Select a blog category
The revised Wire Transfer Regulation (AKA Funds Transfer Regulation) is proving to be a challenge for many payment service providers (PSPs) to fully understand and implement.
Failure to implement this regulation properly can impact a PSPs ability to prevent, detect and investigate money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as breaches of financial sanctions.
Watch our short video to understand what it is and why you should take notice of it.
The financial challenges and needs that different generational cohorts face is a topic quickly rising up the FCA’s agenda. The FCA’s 2019/20 business plan identified ‘demographic change’ as a key priority for the regulator; and in a recent speech Andrew Bailey, the FCA’s Chief Executive, said that “The most important issue that the FCA faces in the long-run are the forces shaping the intergenerational issues.”
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) became the first regulator in the world to publish their expectations for financial services firms relating to climate change, when it published a supervisory statement in April 2019 (SS3/19).
It is clear that regulatory and societal scrutiny is increasing regarding the impact that individual firms make on the planet, and how individual firms are affected. The large-scale Extinction Rebellion protests, which targeted financial services firms in the City of London attracting the attention of the global media, is testament to it.Insurers, as key economic actors can be affected by climate change in a number of ways. How insurers can show their Boards and regulators that they are proactively assessing, managing and reporting on the financial risks from climate change they are exposed to is paramount in meeting the regulatory expectations.
In writing the story of successful bank authorisations, achieving an Authorisation With Restrictions (AWR), otherwise known as entering mobilisation, is the first step.
Whilst you have overcome the first and one of the more daunting hurdles of getting through the application journey, the second goal of exiting mobilisation is perhaps the most operationally challenging.
As the IAIS kicks off1 the final year of field testing before it adopts the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) at its Annual Conference in November 2019, comparisons with the experience of Solvency II inevitably arise: the IAIS is tackling many of the same policy issues that have already been faced by Solvency II, given both regimes target “market consistency”.2
The IAIS has recently kicked off1 the final year of field testing of its Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), which it is scheduled to adopt at its Annual Conference in November 2019. This blog is part of a two-part series examining the calculation of market-consistent technical reserves in the ICS, which is one of the most important points of valuation methodology for a market-consistent regime.2 In doing so, it draws comparisons with the experience of Solvency II. As it develops the ICS, the IAIS is tackling many of the same policy issues that have already been faced by Solvency II, and how it approaches these issues could prove to be important in the context of the 2020 Solvency II review.
Open Banking has the potential to disrupt banking by changing the way customers manage and move their funds. Although the precise size, scale and speed of the impacts remain uncertain, it is clear that banks need to consider how the diffusion of Open Banking will affect their liquidity, funding strategies, and even business models.
“You are special, you are a beautiful and unique snowflake”
You are, your team is and so are the complex adaptive systems that you are part of.
This is the third article in a series, sharing a number of observed antipatterns and corresponding patterns on the topic of business agility.
This is the second post in a series, sharing a number of observed anti-patterns and corresponding patterns on the topic of business agility (aka digital transformation).
We are in the midst of a Turning Point in a 50 year cycle, in the Age of Digital, as well articulated by Carlota Perez in ‘Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital’. At the time of writing, seven of the top ten firms by market capitalisation are technology companies. Less than two months ago, on 26th June 2018, General Electric, the last remaining original constituent of the Dow Jones index which was created in 1896, left the index, as it was contributing less than half a percent. In 2004, GE was the largest firm in the world by market value and only two years ago, in 2016, GE was still in the top ten. This is an indication of how we are in the Turning Point, how the previous industrial incumbents are shrinking and how firms with new business models and new ways of working, leveraging significant shifts in technology have become the new dominant forms of human organisation.
It was a Saturday morning. I was standing in line at a coffee shop, thinking about flow, as I often find myself doing when waiting in line. I reached for my phone to pass the time (while stuck behind a constraint in the cafe’s system of work) and sent the tweet above*. This tweet went, relatively-speaking for me, viral, breaking in to triple digits of likes and retweets. It seems to have struck a chord.
It has now been almost a year and a half since MiFID II, the cornerstone of European capital markets legislation, became applicable. In this time, where have EU national competent authorities (NCAs) focused their supervisory activity, and what are they planning to look at next? To answer these questions, we surveyed Deloitte subject matter experts across 16 EU Member States on MiFID II supervision undertaken by the NCAs in their jurisdictions1. This was a follow up to a similar survey we undertook last September. It is important to note that the survey has been completed on a best endeavours basis, and may not be exhaustive of all supervisory activity.