Blog Post

Financial regulatory reforms in the UK and US to manage systemic risks and strengthen consumer protection

Compared to micro-prudence of financial institutions, ‘systemic stability’ and ‘consumer protection’ are harder to achieve because they are beyond the reach of the ‘invisible hand’ and of individual supervisory authorities. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to clarify who are the responsible parties for financial systemic stability and consumer protection. An independent regulatory committee for each of systemic risk and consumer protection, with strong legal bases, is expected to work most effectively.

By: Date: December 12, 2012 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

Compared to micro-prudence of financial institutions, ‘systemic stability’ and ‘consumer protection’ are harder to achieve because they are beyond the reach of the ‘invisible hand’ and of individual supervisory authorities. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to clarify who are the responsible parties for financial systemic stability and consumer protection. An independent regulatory committee for each of systemic risk and consumer protection, with strong legal bases, is expected to work most effectively.

In the financial industry, individual financial companies have a incentive to ensure their own soundness because it is necessary for business management and sustainability in the long run: this could be dubbed the ‘invisible hand.’ Furthermore, micro-prudence is incentivised even involuntarily since micro-prudential standards are required by the Basel committee. However, ‘systemic risks’ and ‘consumer protection’ are not taken care of by the ‘invisible hand’ or voluntary incentive mechanisms, since they are not included in the objective functions of financial firms.

The United States and United Kingdom recently adopted two measures for systemic stability. First, the objective function of SIFI (systemically important financial institution)-type financial firms must be constrained by capital surcharges and liquidity regulation for ‘systemic risks’ and ‘customer protection.’ Second, legal frameworks underpinning systemic stability have been constructed, such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in the US. This implies that regulatory concern has expanded from micro-prudence to macro-prudence to enhance financial stability and customer protection.

The FSOC is a legal framework for financial stability based on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The council has a statutory mandate that creates, for the first time, collective accountability in terms of regulatory cooperation, information sharing and consolidated supervision. Since the council launched in October 2010, 19 meetings have been held to examine systemic risks and find measures to address them.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the Treasury established a similar body, the Financial Policy Committee (FPC), based on the Financial Services Bill. Before that, the tripartite system – the Bank of England (BoE), the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury – shared the task of supervision based on memoranda of understanding, but no institution was clearly responsible for the job. To fix this, the Treasury installed the FPC within the BoE, expressly assigning the job of monitoring systemic risks to the bank. From a legal perspective, the BoE is under the Treasury, and accordingly, it can be said that the Treasury and the Parliament can now check the BoE’s supervisory activities. The interim FPC held meetings in June and September this year to examine systemic risks and discuss proper regulatory measures. Additionally, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was established exclusively to protect consumers and to regulate financial firms’ conducts, as a peak of the so-called ‘twin peaks’ that may contribute to minimisation of the room for conflicts between prudential regulation and financial conduct regulation (see Figure 1).

The implication of regulatory reforms in the two countries is that systemic risk might be better taken care of by a regulatory body for which it is a sole responsibility. For systemic stability, the US adopted a ‘collective accountability scheme’ in which different regulatory bodies take supervisory looks at the SIFIs of each financial sector, while the UK adopted a ‘single responsibility scheme’ under the BoE in which a consolidated regulatory body, Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA), took a supervisory look at all the financial firms across financial sectors. 

What useful lessons from this are there for Korea? In a country in which it remains undetermined whether a legal regulatory body for financial stability oversight should be organised, supervisory authorities may work individually on how to measure and cope with systemic risks. However, it will be hard to effectively oversee and regulate financial systemic risks without comprehensive coordination between regulatory bodies, since systemic risks are triggered and affected by diverse factors beyond the reach of individual regulatory bodies, such as monetary and cyclical macroeconomic shocks and the credit risk of SIFI-type financial firms (SIFIs). Therefore, the government needs to establish legal grounds to establish a committee equivalent to the FSOC in the US or FPC in the UK.

In addition, it should also be noted that in the UK, parliament may effectively check the activities of the regulatory authorities. Because of information asymmetry between consumers, regulatory bodies, and financial firms, it is recommendable that the Korean National Assembly takes on the role of ultimate monitor for regulatory supervisory regimes and activities. To do better job in this role, there should be a single monitoring committee, to avoid conflicts of interest between multiple assembly committees. Otherwise, politicians may push more for their own rents rather than for systemic stability and consumer protection.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article

Opinion

Goodbye deleveraging: Fiscal and monetary expansion to support growth in China

China has opted for a renewed fiscal and monetary stimulus to address the risk of the US-led trade war. The dual policies send a clear signal that economic growth is the priority, but such measures do not come without a cost. Deleveraging efforts will have to be put on hold for the time being.

By: Alicia García-Herrero, Gary Ng and Jianwei Xu Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: August 23, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Is Europe America’s Friend or Foe?

Since Donald Trump took office as US president, a new cottage industry in rational theories of his seemingly irrational behavior has developed. On one issue, however, no amount of theorizing has made sense of Trump: his treatment of America's oldest and most reliable ally.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Italy's economic and political outlook

In this week's Sound of Economics, Bruegel affiliate fellow, Silvia Merler, is joined by Marcello Minenna, PhD lecturer at the London Graduate School and Head of Quants at Consob, as well as Lorenzo Codogno, LSE visiting professor, to discuss the Italian government's economic outlook in the European context.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 11, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Ubu ou Machiavel?

L'administration Trump veut imposer une approche transactionnelle des relations économiques gouvernée par le rapport de force bilatéral en lieu et place du contrat multilatéral. Un défi d'une ampleur inédite pour l'Europe.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 6, 2018
Read article

Blog Post

Trading invisibles: Exposure of countries to GDPR

This blog post identifies provisions of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that affect foreign companies, and discusses implications for trade in services with the EU. The authors provide a novel mapping of countries’ relative exposure to these regulations by a) measuring the digital maturity of their service exports to the EU; and b) the share of these exports in national GDP.

By: Sonali Chowdhry and Nicolas Moës Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: June 28, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Trade wars: Just how exposed are EU Member States and industries to the US market?

This blog focuses on how a more restricted access to US final demand could affect EU economies and sectors, by measuring their share of value-added absorbed in the US. The exposure of the EU as a whole in value-added terms is lower compared to that suggested by gross exports to GDP and, overall, gross exports misconstrue the picture of spill-overs through trade linkages. For individual countries, the degree to which gross exports overestimate or underestimate exposure is relatively small, with the important exception of Ireland. However, gross exports significantly overestimate the exposure of EU manufacturing to US final demand.

By: Francesco Chiacchio and Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 1, 2018
Read article Download PDF

External Publication

The changing fortunes of central banking

What are the major challenges of central banks today? This book discusses the developing role of central banks and the policies they pursue in seeking monetary and financial stabilisation, while also giving suggestions for model strategies.

By: Philipp Hartmann, Haizhou Huang and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 29, 2018
Read article

Blog Post

The Iran nuclear deal crisis: Lessons from the 1982 transatlantic dispute over the Siberian gas pipeline

A US president taking a unilateral decision that affects European interests; European policymakers outraged at US interference in their affairs; European businesses fearing losing access to some international markets – sound familiar? This is the story of a crisis that took place in 1982 regarding the Siberian gas pipeline project; its outcome should inspire optimism in the Europeans’ capacity to counteract Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Iranian nuclear deal.

By: Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol and Angela Romano Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 23, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The EU should not sing to Trump’s tune on trade

The US threat of trade sanctions has put the EU in a difficult position. Nevertheless, the EU must respond decisively – not just to protect its own interests but those of the multilateral trading system, and to demonstrate to the US and other partners that trade is not a zero-sum game.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: May 17, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Europe needs a broader discussion of its future

When thinking about what will determine the prosperity and well-being of citizens living in the euro area, five issues are central. This column, part of VoxEU's Euro Area Reform debate, argues that the important CEPR Policy Insight by a team of French and German economists makes an important contribution to two of them, but leaves aside some of the most crucial ones: European public goods, a proper fiscal stance and major national reforms. It also argues that its compromise on sovereign debt appears unbalanced.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 4, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

European income inequality begins to fall once again

Following almost a decade of relative stability, income inequality within the EU recorded a sizeable decline in 2016, reaching its lowest value since 1989. The fall of both within- and between-country inequality contributed to the 2016 reduction in overall EU inequality.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Germany’s export-oriented economic model is caught in a US-Chinese squeeze

The new Merkel government has to reduce the dependencies on exports by stimulating domestic growth forces in Germany and Europe. At the same time, Berlin should push for a more ambitious national and European innovation policy as well as a robust European foreign trade policy.

By: Sebastian Heilmann and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 30, 2018
Load more posts